Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

School Transport

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local authorities regarding the consultative documents setting out proposals for revised arrangements for school transport in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement on the timescale envisaged for implementing the proposals contained in this document.

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is yet in a position to announce his proposals to amend the system of financial assistance for transport to school.

Mr. Michael Spicer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what stage he has reached in his investigations into the statutory walking distance for school children.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): The local authority associations, as well as four individual authorities, have commented on my consultative document—as have a number of other interested bodies and members of the public. Although I am grateful for the volume of this response, it shows no consensus as to future policy. I shall need now to consider what changes, if any, can reasonably be made in the present school transport system.

Mr. Penhaligon: I thank the Minister for his reply, and am glad that he recog-

nises that there is little enthusiasm for the scheme in rural areas. Is it not time that the House recognised that closing primary schools was a great mistake? Will the Secretary of State give me the one categoric assurance that is important —that the reduction in public expenditure for which provision has recently been made will not mean a basic total increase in the cost of the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is more than enough.

Mr. Mulley: In cash terms, the cost of maintaining children in school will go up, of course, with the increased salaries and other expenses. I can give no assurance that there will be no increase.

Mr. Macfarquhar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on both sides accept that this is a very complex problem, but that the period of two and a half years since the report was published and four months of consultation is more than enough time to reach a decision on even the most complex of problems? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to make a recommendation to the House in the nearest possible future?

Mr. Mulley: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not see any point in having consultations with the local authorities without paying some regard to what they represent in those consultations. It has been put to me that at the present time they would see very great difficulties in the basic change that would be necessary—namely, taking away the free entitlement beyond the statutory walking distances and providing transport for shorter distances—without a contribution from parents. The Association of County Councils, principally concerned, is still studying the matter, and I must listen to what it says.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the position of minority groups of parents, such as those living in rural areas or those of a particular religious denomination, is safeguarded, so that unfair financial burdens are not placed upon them?

Mr. Mulley: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I have had representations from both denominational interests and rural areas. This is one


of the very real problems to which there is no easy answer.

Mr. Ovenden: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the present system is causing grave hardship to millions of parents, and endeavour to bring in a revised scheme of some sort by the beginning of the next school year? Will he also give an assurance that any revised scheme will not be affected by the public expenditure review?

Mr. Mulley: I can give no such assurance, because any revised scheme—other than that proposed, which would mean asking a contribution from those beyond the statutory walking distances now and which would require legislation—would, of course, increase the cost to local authorities, and that would increase public expenditure. It is precisely because of the enormous public expenditure involvement that many local authorities do not exercise the powers that they have. It is open to any local education authority now to make such arrangements for free or subsidised transport that it wishes within the statutory walking distances. The reason why authorities do not is the understandable extra cost that it would mean for their ratepayers.

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he hopes to complete his consultations with local authorities on the school transport problem.

Mr. Mulley: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I have given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden), the hon. Member for Turo (Mr. Penhaligon) and the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer).

Mr. Luce: After consultation with the local authorities, if the flat rate system is found to fulfil the main objectives of providing a fairer system for parents and containing public expenditure, will the Secretary of State keep an open mind about the level of the fixed rate to be provided, and will he at least allow for some variation in local rates to take account of varying local conditions?

Mr. Mulley: That is a reasonable request and obviously I should wish to give it consideration. However, I am not far enough down the road to say what

general rate should be charged. There is some opposition to, and certainly no consensus on, the basic proposal that we should get rid of the statutory three mile and two mile limits outside which free transport is provided. Unless that is resolved the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise.

Mr. Loyden: Does my right hon. Friend not consider that some of the methods used in determining the three-mile limit are outmoded? Someone in the town clerk's office may draw a little wheel across a map, which is about 50 years old, to determine whether a child is entitled to free school transport. Is not it about time that this was tidied up, and local authorities were advised to adopt a more practical and simple method?

Mr. Mulley: The actual provision is laid down by Act of Parliament and can be amended only by a new Act of Parliament. Local authorities have a discretion. If they wish to provide free or subsidised transport within the statutory limits, they are quite free and able to do so.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Have the Government formed any view whether safety on the roads, particularly in country areas, is based upon outdated assumptions?

Mr. Mulley: It was because of the outdated assumptions of the 1944 Act in relation to the volume of traffic and what parents thought was a reasonable distance for their children to walk that the Committee was set up, and that I put my proposal to the local authority associations. I found no consensus of support among local authorities for the only kind of changes that would be practical at present, when there is pressure on both central and local government finances.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some parents in my constituency, who live just inside the limits, have to pay about £7 a week for their children's transport to school while others, who live just outside, do not pay anything at all? Would it not be fairer to have a flat rate of, for instance, 10p per ride?

Mr. Mulley: I was not aware of the exact sums that my hon. Friend's constituents pay, but it was because of that


discrepancy that I put forward my proposal. At that time we thought that a flat rate of 7p would be appropriate. However among those who would have to administer the scheme there is no consensus of opinion that it is workable.

Overseas Students

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about fees for overseas students.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 16th December—[Vol. 902, cc. 553–54.]—concerning fees for 1976–77. The Government are currently reviewing longer-term policy in respect of charges for overseas students.

Mr. Marten: As these students—many of them from wealthy countries overseas —pay only about 15 per cent. of the cost of education, would it not be better if they paid a higher fee, with grants and remissions for those who most need them? On that point——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now asking a second supplementary question.

Mr. Fowler: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government, in their consideration of the longer-term issues here, are taking account of exactly the considerations that he has mentioned. The Government also have to take account of the benefit, sometimes unquantifiable, that overseas students bring to this country.

Mr. Grylls: Will the Minister confirm that it was the Labour Government in 1967 who introduced differential rates for overseas students? Will he bear in mind in future that he must do nothing to deter students from the developing world, who will find it difficult to meet very steeply increased fees?

Mr. Fowler: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". The answer to the second part is that the Ministry of Overseas Development provides substantial help to students from the developing world.

Sir David Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money will have been paid by Her Majesty's Government for the education in the United Kingdom of foreign students during the current financial year; and how much it is estimated will be spent during the coming financial year.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: About £17 million in 1975–76 and an estimated £20 million in 1976–77 on Ministry of Overseas Development and Foreign and Commonwealth Office Votes for the education and training of overseas students in this country at educational and other institutions under aid programmes and scholarships. In addition, Her Majesty's Government contribute towards the total cost of educational provision through grants to the universities and other institutions and to local authorities.

Sir David Renton: As there is a statutory obligation to provide for the education of our own children and young people, and no such obligation in regard to foreign students, will the Minister tell us how such large amounts of money provided for foreign students can be justified?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. It is part of a general aid programme for students from developing countries. I should be much more disturbed were I convinced that our own students were being excluded from institutions of higher education by the presence of overseas students. At the moment there is no evidence to suggest that.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the inquiry into this matter, which was mentioned earlier, include the possible transfer of the Minister's administration in such a way that the British people get proper credit for the considerable amount of aid they give under this head?

Mr. Fowler: Nothing is excluded from the inquiry. However, we must be exceedingly careful to observe international rules, and in some respects they are constraining.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that, rightly or wrongly, there is a strong feeling that foreign students are being admitted into universities at the


expense of our own citizens? Is that true or not?

Mr. Fowler: There is no truth whatsoever in that proposition at this moment.

Mr. Brittan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement about fees at universities payable by overseas students.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier today to a Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).

Mr. Brittan: I welcome that answer. Does the Minister not agree that one of the difficulties in this area is that it is extremely difficult to assess the exact balance of costs to universities and benefits from students? Would it not be helpful to publish a clear statement of that on an investigation by the Department, so that we know where we stand in this matter?

Mr. Fowler: The problem is even more complicated than the hon. Gentleman suggests. It would be difficult to obtain the precise costings, because we are dealing not simply with universities but with the further education sector. The whole issue is exceedingly complex on both sides of the equation. It is almost impossible to quantify the benefits that we receive from the presence of overseas students.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Minister of State agree that the financial and economic burden and benefits probably cancel each other out, and that what is important is the cultural issue? Does he not agree that we should be glad, not sorry, that foreign students want to come here during the most formative period in their lives, to take advantage of our education system?

Mr. Fowler: It will be apparent from my previous answer that I cannot agree that financial benefits and burdens cancel out. I am not sure whether they do. I accept, happily, that we receive cultural benefit from foreign students, but we must also remember, as certain Opposition Members have suggested today, that we have to provide for our own students. There is a delicate balance here.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in fees for overseas students will militate against ordinary students coming here and allow only those to come over who already have money? Is it not the policy of the Labour Party to bring to this country the dispossessed and the most downtrodden students, so that they can learn about our way of life, no matter how much Opposition Members may laugh?

Mr. Fowler: For the third time today I must draw hon. Members' attention to the work of the Ministry of Overseas Development in supporting foreign students. Nor do I find it iniquitous that fees were increased this year in a manner commensurate with the rise in costs.

Comprehensive Schools (Performance and Discipline)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up an inquiry into the standards of academic performance and discipline in comprehensive schools.

Mr. Mulley: No, Sir. All aspects of performance in all types of school are the continuing concern of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, from whom I receive regular advice. In addition the Inspectorate are now conducting a survey of secondary schools where the aim is to describe the character and to assess the quality of secondary education over the last two years of compulsory schooling.

Mr. Winterton: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that his answer will be highly unsatisfactory to many parents who are particularly interested in standards and discipline in schools? Is he further aware that in many urban areas in which comprehensive schools have been established, truancy is on the increase and that, at the same time, the examination record is lower?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is breaking this afternoon's record.

Mr. Winterton: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his supplementary question.

Mr. Mulley: I do not want to get involved in matters of indiscipline in the


House, Mr. Speaker. On the question of discipline in schools, it is not unlikely that since over two-thirds of secondary schools are comprehensive schools, some of the small group of badly behaved pupils should be among pupils in those schools. There is no evidence that comprehensive reorganisation has added to the problem, which I accept is the real problem of discipline in schools generally.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will my hon. Friend accept from me as a parent who, in an excess of misguided political zeal, sent two daughters to a comprehensive school, that standards in some comprehensive schools leave much to be desired?

Mr. Mulley: If my recollection serves me correctly, it is some years since my right hon. Friend's daughters left school. Things have probably changed in the interim.

Mr. Lane: Will the Government do more to ensure that the lessons learned in areas where comprehensive reorganisation has worked well are promptly applied in areas where it is patently not working so well?

Mr. Mulley: Naturally we wish all schools to benefit from the best experience available. As the House has not seen fit to grant me national control over the system of secondary education, my influence is at the moment limited.

School Meals

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will be able to announce the size of the proposed increase in the charge for school meals.

Mr. Mulley: The charge will be increased to 20p in September next. This was announced in the recent White Paper on Public Expenditure (Cmnd. 6393).

Mr. Gow: Since the estimated cost of subsidies for school meals has increased from £266 million in June last year to £331 million last month, does the Secretary of State think that it would be prudent, in the national interest, to advance the date of the increase?

Mr. Mulley: No, Sir. Had I thought that to be the right decision, I should have done so already.

Mr. Madden: Are not parents already contributing more than half the total cost of providing school meals? Could not the cost of the overall service be reduced if changes were made in the content of school meals, to give higher nutritional value, and if changes were not made in the administration of the service?

Mr. Mulley: It would be difficult to find over £300 million along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. In September, when the new charge begins—and costs will probably rise in that year—there will still be a subsidy of over 50 per cent. At present the subsidy is running at 64 per cent.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Rather than imposing a specific increase on the charge for school meals, would it not be better, within a system of cash limits for the total cost of education, to leave the discretion for fixing the amount of the increase to local education authorities, so that they could make up their minds about relevant priorities?

Mr. Mulley: That is one of the factors which have been considered. I understand that over the years it has been the wish for the cost of the school meal to be fixed nationally, so as to avoid the kind or arguments that might otherwise arise within each locality.

Adult Education

Mr. Bryan Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to maintain the level of provision of adult education.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: The rate support grant settlement for 1976–77 provides for the maintenance of standards in the adult and other education services. It is for local authorities individually to decide their own patterns of expenditure, but I hope they will base their decisions on the advice given in the joint circular of 31st December 1975.

Mr. Davies: Whilst accepting my hon. Friend's answer, I am sure that he will appreciate the savaging of adult education budgets and the doubling of fees in recent months. Is there not some merit in the proposition put to him by the Principal of Ruskin College, that a national council should be formed to safeguard the development of adult education?

Mr. Fowler: It is not obvious that the establishment of an institution in the form of a national council would have any direct impact on the policies of local education authorities. I hope that local education authorities will observe the advice given in the circular and ensure that any cuts they make do not bear disproportionately on adult education.

Mrs. Bain: I recognise that local authorities have a great deal of say in such decisions. Does the Minister intend to take steps to prevent them from doing what the Strathclyde Region has done, namely, to open a technical college in my constituency on one day and to close it on the same day?

Mr. Fowler: I am happy to say that there has been no parallel to that action in England and Wales. I suggest that the hon. Lady would address her question with profit, to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Dr. Hampson: Is the 16–19 age group "adult", or still regarded as at the end of the school period? Is it not time for us to regard adults and further education together, and for the Department, instead of having conferences on the matter, to work with the Department of Employment and use some of its money to improve the provision for adult training and retraining?

Mr. Fowler: I note with interest the hon. Gentleman's desire to increase the resources available to my Department at the cost of another Department of State.

Dr. Hampson: Transfer resources.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a complex matter. There is an overlap between schools and further education in the 16–19 age group, and between the 16–19 age group and adult education. This is a complex matter, to which we give continued study.

Youth Services

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what prizes have been awarded following his announcement that an essay competition would be launched to invite ideas from young people about the rôle of the youth services.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Twenty-five pounds was awarded to the entry from

West Glamorgan Venture Scouts. Four runners-up each received £5.

Mr. Steen: Does the Minister agree that that is a most disappointing result? Does he further agree that it perhaps indicates the widening gulf between young people, the youth service and his Department? Does it not also indicate the rejection by young people of the Government's paternalistic approach towards them? Will he now——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked a supplementary question. I am trying my best to make hon. Members ask one supplementary question.

Mr. Steen: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Gentleman not ask a question?

Mr. Steen: I was in the middle of doing so when you called me to order Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful for your instruction. Perhaps I may crave your indulgence and finish my question. Does the Minister agree that young people should be given powers of decision making in respect of matters that concern their own youth service? Does he agree——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I feel like a schoolmaster. Mr. Fowler.

Mr. Fowler: I am full of admiration for the hon. Gentleman and his means of packing several supplementary questions into one. I do not think that the result was disappointing, least of all for the West Glamorgan Venture Scouts. The entries in the competition were of an extremely high standard. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about paternalism. I hope that I have never been guilty of that vice. I should like all age ranges concerned with the youth service to be involved in its administration.

Education Organisation and Teaching Methods

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will establish an inquiry into the results of changes in education organisation and teaching methods in the post-war period.

Mr. Mulley: I see no merit in such a wide-ranging inquiry.

Mr. Newton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is widespread anxiety among many people in


relation to not only secondary education but primary schools? In view of that and the considerable consequences which his education cuts will have, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it his duty to provide for a full stocktaking of where we have been and where we are going?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman is asking his original Question over again. The public expenditure survey protects—this is the verdict of The Times Educational Supplement, not mine—the 5–18 year-olds. There is no cut-back on the standards in the compulsory sector of education. As I have already said in answer to other questions, we are conducting reseach and investigation over a wide range of topics within education. Frankly, I do not think that an omnibus inquiry of this sort would be of any advantage at all.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he already has full information available on these matters, through the monitoring work of his Department and Her Majesty's Inspectorate?

Mr. Mulley: Yes, I am glad to confirm that.

Dr. Boyson: Does the Secretary of State not agree that there is widespread concern amongst parents in cases where new experimental methods have been introduced into schools without their agreement? Will he not follow the suggestion of Mr. Raymond Maddison, the adviser to the Select Committee between 1966 and 1970, that such methods should be brought in only with the agreement of the parents concerned and with the issuing of reports to them on the monitoring of what is achieved?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman is very naughty. He is trying to tempt me to interfere with school curriculum matters which he knows are the preserve of local authorities and teachers. I think that tie hon. Gentleman is prone to exaggerate the effects of the so-called creative methods. As he will know, the Bullock Report made it clear that there was no substance in the generalisation that the promotion of creativity was being pursued at the expense of basic skills.

Teachers

Mrs. Wise: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what

steps he is taking to reduce unemployment among teachers.

Mr. Mulley: I am considering, together with my Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers, what measures may be possible to limit any rise in the number of teachers unemployed.

Mrs. Wise: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many teachers are now unemployed? A recent reply from his own Department indicated that more than 5,000 were unemployed. Is my right hon. Friend now satisfied with the size of classes in schools? If not, why are any teachers unemployed at present?

Mr. Mulley: I am as concerned about teachers being unemployed as I am about people in any category of work being unemployed. The 5,000 unemployed teachers, of which 3,800 are school teachers, account for less than 1 per cent. of the teaching force. We must put the matter into perspective. Although, like everyone involved in education, I should like to see smaller classes, it is really a matter of priorities. Against the economic background and the, unhappily, very large number of others unemployed, it is not possible to meet this problem in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is the Secretary of State aware that officials of his own Department have indicated that 3,800 is an underestimate and that the figure is much more likely to be nearer 7,000, and may well double in the near future? What will the right hon. Gentleman do about that?

Mr. Mulley: The figures that I have given are those from the Department of Employment. I do not duplicate the service by trying to collect the figures independently. The figures are based on people who describe themselves as teachers. I cannot go beyond that. There is the problem that in future there may well be more unemployed teachers. As the hon. Gentleman should know, one of the difficulties—in a sense this is a problem that I welcome—is that as a result of the increased salaries and better conditions following the recommendations of the Houghton Report, many former teachers are coming back to teaching and competing for the vacancies with those


who are leaving the teacher training colleges.

Mrs. Renée Short: My right hon. Friend has spoken of priorities in education. Is he not aware that the reduction in the size of classes has long been a priority of the Labour Party and has featured in practically every election since the war? Does he not further agree that another way of reducing unemployment would be to ensure that nursery classes were opened?

Mr. Mulley: A considerable number of additional nursery classes are being opened. It has been a disappointment to me that many local authorities are not taking advantage of building allocations to build more nursery classes. The only reason why we cannot employ all the teachers is that the present resources available for public expenditure do not permit us to do all the things that we would like to do.

Mr. Freud: What does the Secretary of State propose to do about the large number of qualified teachers of the disabled who are finding that local authorities are preferring to retain unqualified teachers?

Mr. Mulley: I do not have knowledge of particular instances. If the hon. Gentleman will let me know the details of instances of this sort, naturally I shall seek to discuss them with the authorities concerned. This matter has not previously been brought to my attention.

Teachers' Handbook of Suggestions

Dr. Boyson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has considered revising the Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers.

Mr. Mulley: A single volume cannot cover adequately all aspects of education as it has developed since the Handbook was last printed in 1944. My Department has issued a number of Education Surveys, pamphlets and other publications on specific topics. I believe this is now a more appropriate way to communicate with teachers.

Dr. Boyson: Is the Secretary of State not aware that that Handbook of Suggestions used to be held in every school and that the Department's inspectors used to draw it to the teachers' attention? It

was at least a guarantee of a basic minimum curriculum wherever they went, whereas the satisfaction of many parents now depends on which school their children go to in the "bingo" of the State education system?

Mr. Mulley: I think that even the hon. Gentleman will admit that there have been changes and improvements in the education system since 1944. Indeed, the book was printed before the 1944 Act, to deal with the public elementary schools. Although the hon. Gentleman may like to take education back to 1944, very few hon. Members would want to go back with him.

Mr. Brittan: Does not the fact that the handbook was printed so long ago underline the need for printing a new version of it, incorporating any fresh material, so that there is available a revised but comprehensive standard which can be applied by teachers today?

Mr. Mulley: If the hon. Member had paid me the courtesy of listening to my original reply he would have realised that the information is made available but that it is thought more convenient and appropriate to do it by way of a series of texts on particular topics rather than to try to combine them all together in one book, not least because after the 1944 handbook was produced the 1944 Act divided schools, so that there were no longer all-age schools.

Universities

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to make universities open and comprehensive.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: We want to encourage developments that enable a wider range of students to be admitted and a greater diversity of courses to be provided, but we have no proposals for legislation.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend not accept that a disproportionate amount of the resources devoted to education goes to a relatively privileged élite and that the facilities are grossly underutilised? Would it not be far more efficient and egalitarian to merge all further and adult education into one system?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot accept some of those propositions. It is not clear that the facilities are under-utilised. I must defend the universities against that attack. Over the years they have done a very good job in providing education at a very cheap rate by comparison with international standards. When my hon. Friend speaks of widening opportunities in further and higher education and the constant endeavour that is needed to achieve that, I have every sympathy with him.

Sir G. Sinclair: Will the Minister be more categorical in issuing a warning that to make the universities comprehensive with no criteria of entry would be to destroy academic standards? Does he realise that those countries in Europe that have tried this system envy the academic excellence of our universities?

Mr. Fowler: We should be totally clear that the Open University, which is totally open, has very high standards. I hope that we shall not have an attack on that open and comprehensive system. I want to see a comprehensive system of post-school education.

Mr. Grocott: Apart from anything else there is often an unnecessary duplication of resources between polytechnics, universities and centres for higher education. Would it not be in the interests of economy and of educational policy to have comprehensive education at 18-plus, in the way that we plan to have it at 11-plus?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with the implication of the question, which is that we must secure ever-improving links between the universities, the polytechnics and other institutions of post-school education to ensure that facilities are used to the optimum.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Minister now answer the question put by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), which, if I may rephrase it, amounted to this: why is it immoral and wicked to select before the age of 16 or 18, and virtuous and praiseworthy to select after that age?

Mr. Fowler: What the hon. Member describes as rephrasing has ended up as an entirely different question. It is in no way virtuous or moral to select; it is

merely that in higher education specialist courses are offered, sometimes in specialist institutions and sometimes in less specialist institutions. The guiding principle is admission to the course, not admission to the institution.

Jump Primary and Infants' School

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the improvements required at the Jump Primary and Infants' School to bring it up to a reason able standard; and if he will make a statement on the present conditions at this school.

Mr. Mulley: I understand from the Barnsley education authority that the boilers in the old building were recently replaced; work is about to start on moving all toilets indoors; and some minor repairs are also to be undertaken.

Mr. Wainwright: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the bad conditions that obtain in that school? He has not read out a quarter of the facilities that are below normal standards. Will he do something, in co-operation with the Barnsley Metropolitan District Education Committee, to ensure that reasonable standards are achieved at the school?

Mr. Mulley: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in the schools in his constituency. He will find that as a result of the expenditure I have just indicated there will be an improvement. The infants' premises date from 1968 while the premises occupied by the juniors go back to 1880. I understand that compared with a number of other schools in the authority's area, conditions at this school are by no means the worst. They are not seriously over-crowded, or intolerable. However, I am sure that the improvements now being undertaken will help a great deal.

Donatello Plaque

Mr. Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in acquiring the plaque by Donatello for the nation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Hugh Jenkins): I am pleased to say that the purchase has been completed, half the


cost having been met from non-Government sources, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the effort made by the Victoria and Albert Museum to achieve this satisfactory result and of the generosity of the National Art Collections Fund, the Pilgrim Trust, the Wolfson Foundation, Christies, the Italian Community in London, and many other private benefactors.

Mr. Graham: In the light of that reply, will my hon. Friend reveal the amount contributed from public sources through the funds of the Victoria and Albert?

Mr. Jenkins: Half the purchase price—£94,000—was found from Government sources. The other half was secured from private benefactors and it was not therefore necessary for the Government to add any further sum to the amount collected. Fortunately, the response was very good. I must re-emphasise my appreciation of the many sources from which the money was derived.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We agree that credit is due to the director of the Victoria and Albert, to the National Art Collection Fund and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) for saving this treasure for the nation. The only person to whom no credit is due is the Minister himself, who is charged with the responsibility of protecting our national heritage but who refused to intervene to help save this treasure for the nation.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member is not as ignorant as he pretends. He knows full well—or he should—that the rôle of public money in this matter is first to provide priming money. Secondly, the public benefactors can then come in. The Government rôle is then to find any end money that is necessary. In this case, fortunately, owing to the generosity of private benefactors, it was unnecessary for the Government to find anything beyond the original sum.

Metropolitan District Councils (Aid)

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further aid he can provide for metropolitan district councils with responsibility for educational provision.

Mr. Mulley: I have no power to supplement the rate support grant paid to local authorities.

Mr. Rodgers: Does the Minister agree that as a consequence of the extraordinary local government changes which took place recently in that area many district authorities have to bear the full burden of education without adequate resources? Will he take steps to remedy that situation?

Mr. Mulley: The formula that determines the distribution of rate support grant is arrived at by this House on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Layfield Committee, which has been going into these matters, is due to report shortly. I have no doubt that there will be considerable discussion on that, and I hope that my hon. Friend will contribute to that discussion. For the moment I have no power to supplement the rate support grant.

Mr. Kershaw: The United Kingdom Committee for Overseas Student Affairs is very active in this area. Is it not deplorable that the Government are destroying the subsidy to UKCOSA for the forthcoming year? What does the Minister plan to do about that?

Mr. Mulley: I am not sure that the question arises from the provision of money to metropolitan district councils.

Mr. Hardy: Does my right hon. Friend consider that metropolitan district council education committees and all other education authorities should be made fully aware of the fact that by 1979 there will be 578,000 fewer children in our primary schools?

Mr. Mulley: I think the reduction in the number of children of school age in the next 10 years is a factor we have to keep very much in the forefront of our minds. It can mean certainly 1 million and possibly 1·5 million children fewer than the present 9 million, and in planning ahead we have to take that into account.

NEW ZEALAND (PRIME MINISTER)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on


the visit of the New Zealand Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): My colleagues and I look forward to Mr. Muldoon's visit to London from 11th to 15th April, and to exchanging views with him over a wide range of matters of mutual interest, as we did with the New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister during his visit to London in February, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Will the Prime Minister discuss with the New Zealand Prime Minister the proposition that as next year is the Queen's Silver Jubilee year it should also be designated "Commonwealth Year", for which he might consider appointing a Foreign Office Minister to concentrate specifically on the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the Jamaica Conference my Commonwealth colleagues agreed that the next Commonwealth Conference should be held in London during the peak of the Silver Jubilee celebrations. I have already made arrangements for a very senior ex-Commonwealth Office official to prepare all the necessary arrangements in consultation with Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Spearing: As the Prime Minister will not have seen Mr. Muldoon since the conference in Jamaica, when he next meets him will he take the opportunity of suggesting that Commonwealth experts and Ministers should get together before the UNCTAD Conference in Nairobi, so that the initiative that the Prime Minister started in Jamaica may be continued at that conference?

The Prime Minister: Yes. As my hon. Friend will be aware, Mr. Muldoon was not at the Jamaica Conference. We have kept in close contact with our Commonwealth colleagues over the commodity initiative that Her Majesty's Government put forward at Jamaica, both in preparation for the special session of the United Nations, where we work together closely, and also in preparation for the UNCTAD Conference.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the Prime Minister discuss the mountains of butter and skimmed milk that have been established in the EEC? As skimmed milk is

almost a straight substitute for fish meal, will he and the Commonwealth bring to bear whatever influence they can on their friends, the Danes, to stop the decimation of the important protein fish stocks of the North Sea?

The Prime Minister: When the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand visited this country we had a full discussion, lasting about an hour, on the question of the butter and cheese arrangements that were discussed and about which instructions were given at the European Council Heads of Government Summit in Dublin a year ago. Some progress, although not as much as we should like, has been made on butter. Cheese is also being discussed.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (CHAIRMEN)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the nationalised industries.

The Prime Minister: I am ready to meet the chairmen of the nationalised industries whenever necessary, as I did last July, Sir, but, apart from those I hope to meet at NEDC tomorrow I have at present no plans to meet them as a group.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: When the Prime Minister meets them will it not be necessary to discuss the Trades Union Congress's important statement over the weekend that top salaries should not be more than £20,000, in view of the excessive salaries paid to some chairmen and part-time chairmen of these industries?

The Prime Minister: I and my right hon. Friends are in touch with the CBI, the chairmen of the nationalised industries and the TUC on these matters.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend explain how the appointment of Sir Richard Dobson—currently earning £58,000 a year, and with an £80,000 goodbye present—to a part-time, three-days-a-week job as chairman of British Leyland, will inspire British Leyland workers with the belief that publicly-owned industries will be more democratic in the future?

The Prime Minister: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry was answering Questions yesterday from my hon. Friend and others on this matter. It is true that I met Sir Richard Dobson after he had been appointed by the Board—I did not interview him, as has been stated—following the consultations with the National Enterprise Board. Indeed, all the relevant Ministers were involved before that appointment was made, including myself. [Interruption.] You want the facts; you are getting them—through you, Mr. Speaker, of course.
With regard to the inspiration of British Leyland workers, my hon. Friend will have been delighted to see the very big improvement in productivity and the faster move than many expected towards profitability. As from 1968 until very recently there had been only four days in the history of British Leyland when there were no strikes, my hon. Friend will be glad to see, and will, I am sure, do all that he can to encourage, the recent improvement in industrial relations.

Mr. Pardoe: The Prime Minister will recognise that some people, even on the Opposition side of the House, have sympathy with limiting the level of top salaries. However, why it is proving so difficult to obtain the services of younger men to head up these industries? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there has been some unfavourable and perhaps unfair—[Interruption.]. Is the Prime Minister aware that that is not actually one of the jobs that I am looking for? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall never hear what job it is.

Mr. Pardoe: Before that ribald interruption I was asking the Prime Minister whether he could make sure that these jobs were widely advertised to recruit those with qualifications other than that of being geriatric.

The Prime Minister: As to the hon. Gentleman, I shall be prepared to consider it if he will send me a note of his qualifications—an octavo sheet will do, as I think most of his hon. Friends would agree. Concerning the wider question raised by the hon. Gentleman some time ago, in the case of British Leyland, as he will know, it was decided that the

main weight of leadership would fall on the chief executive—who, I should have thought, is conducting his operations very successfully—and that one wanted a rather wise, elder industrial statesman in the chair, but not to interfere with the work of the chief executive.

PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on the Civil Service at the Civil Service Department on Monday 16th February.

The Prime Minister: I did so, Sir, on 17th February.

Mr. Ovenden: In view of my right hon. Friend's quite proper concern with morale in the Civil Service, will he give an assurance that the scaling down of Civil Service manpower proposed in the public expenditure review can be carried out without a deterioration in the standards of service provided to the disadvantaged members of the community such as the services provided by the Department of Health and Social Security?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I refer my hon. Friend to the very full statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, in the debate on 5th February. Since then, as my hon. Friend will know, the Public Expenditure White Paper has been published, which shows the extent of the proposed reductions, expressed in financial terms.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister recollect that in that speech he referred to coins jingling in pay packets? Will he confirm that nevertheless it is his Government's policy to increase the burden of tax on the taxpayer?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady was kind enough last week to forecast all that the present Government will do in the next four years, which will be well into the next Parliament. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, she conceded it. During those four years, as the right hon. Lady will know, we have set out very fully—the House will shortly be debating them—all the implications of the expenditure policy. However, the right


hon. Lady will realise, of course, that one problem here, for us and for the House, is that we do not intend to finance them as her Government did, by the vast printing of money through the printing presses.

Mrs. Thatcher: The right hon. Gentleman has therefore confirmed that it is his policy to increase taxes. The only remaining question is, by how much?

The Prime Minister: I confirmed nothing of the kind. I referred to the White Paper which the House will be debating. In that debate the right hon. Lady will no doubt tell us what, additionally, she would cut—apart from all her recent statements calling for increased expenditure.

Mr. Skinner: During the next four years, will my right hon. Friend change the current language of his Government's policies—Socialist policies, may we say?—and change from a policy of rescuing the secondary banking system as a first priority to one of scaling down the figure of 1½ million people who are currently on the dole?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend is not satisfied with the Government's language, I shall look at that. However, I can tell him that any replacement will not involve using his language.

CABINET MEETINGS

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will require Members of Her Majesty's Government to sign an official undertaking mat they will not take notes of proceedings or notes of their recollection of any proceedings in or relating to the Cabinet.

The Prime Minister: There is no need for a general rule of this kind, Sir.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: As the Government have spent quite a lot of public money persuading the Attorney-General to try to suppress the Crossman Diaries, what will the Prime Minister do to raise the standard from what he and I must both agree, presumably, is at a very low level?

The Prime Minister: I agree very much. Indeed, I have informed the House of the Government's acceptance of the Radcliffe Report. The Radcliffe Commit-

tee considered all these matters. The Government have accepted its Report. I do not want to go too much into some of the things that have been said, but there were many statements in those diaries which I know to have been not only not true but not even possibly true, because they could not have fitted in with the dates when things were staled to have happened.

Mr. Dalyell: On the narrow aspect, to be fair to the memory of Dick Crossman, is it not a fact that practically everyone around the Cabinet table knew precisely what he was up to?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We knew that he was taking a considerable academic interest in constitutional questions. He made that clear. However, as paragraph 99 of the Radcliffe Report makes clear, while it is possible that members of successive Governments of the last 200 years have tried to keep their memory fresh by making notes afterwards—that was before tapes were usable—this was assumed to be for nemonic purposes, to help them to write more accurately any book that they might wish to write. What no one could have forecast was that Dick Crossman—my late right hon. Friend—would die and that these things would be put out without his editing.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Crossman's observation in his diaries, to the effect that none of the Cabinet understood the Land Commission Act 1967, applies also to the Development Land Tax Bill at present?

The Prime Minister: It does not apply. It did not apply then. But our good friend Dick, who spent a lot of time on other things, very often did not understand complicated legislation of that kind.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us believe that the late Richard Crossman did a first-class job in tearing away the veil—the so-called secrecy of government? Is it not clear that rather than stopping the discussions from being publicised, in the interests of open government it would be far better if all the discussions were publicised, so that all of us would know precisely what was going on, what the real decisions


were and how they were arrived at, rather than have the present position, of a pretence that no disagreements occur?

The Prime Minister: No. It is well recognised that in successive Governments there have been disagreements, and are disagreements. As we have read today, there are even disagreements within the Shadow Cabinet. My hon. Friend is very experienced in these matters, and as a fellow member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party I hope he does not seriously suggest that the Cabinet should operate on the same basis as the NEC as regards open discussion.

Mr. Aitken: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he reconciles his remarks about Mr. Crossman's diaries with the continual flow of leaks which completely violated Cabinet secrecy at the time of the Chrysler affair, especially the repeated verbatim briefings of journalists by senior Cabinet Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I have already expressed my views on that matter. I think that that was a most unfortunate set of circumstances. Although I do not think that it was the intention, it even gave help to the Opposition Front Bench. However, the Opposition are now having to explain why they voted to close down Chrysler as well as British Leyland.

RHODESIA

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a Statement on Lord Greenhill's recent visit to Rhodesia.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the House on 24th February that the purpose of Lord Greenhill's mission was exploratory: to assess whether attitudes had changed to the point where there might be a genuine possibility of the British Government's helping to promote a settlement providing for an early and orderly transfer of power in Rhodesia.
Lord Greenhill arrived in Salisbury in the early hours of Thursday 26th February, and left again on the afternoon of the following day. During his stay, he

had two meetings with Mr. Smith and one with Mr. Nkomo and some of his colleagues.
I received Lord Greenhill's report over the weekend and discussed it with him yesterday. He did not bring back any constitutional proposals, for that was not his purpose. But he did bring back the assessment of attitudes for which I asked and which I am now considering. Let me make clear once again that our objective is an early transition to majority rule by peaceful means. In the light of what Lord Greenhill has told me I am considering whether there is anything we can usefully do to help achieve this end. These are serious days for Rhodesia and there must be adequate time for consideration. I shall inform the House of my conclusions.
I should like on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to renew my thanks to Lord Greenhill for undertaking this mission.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we appreciate that he wants to tread carefully and not to endanger whatever chances of success there may be? However, does he agree that those who play with time are now running out of that precious commodity, and that there is an urgent need for an early move if the transition is to be peaceful? Will he confirm the Press reports that Lord Greenhill also met some white business men?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the mood of the white community? There have been encouraging reports that it is now much more flexible than in the past. To that extent we appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is considering whether there is anything we can do to help. Although we must not exaggerate Britain's influence in this situation, it may well be that once the principle of majority rule is accepted we might be able to do much to reconcile the whites to the change in the situation and to get the new country off to a good start.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I agree entirely that those who play with time are finding that that commodity is getting increasingly scarce. The whole situation would be transformed if Mr. Smith said to his European followers that the time had come to accept the principle


of majority rule and that he intended to enter into negotiations for an orderly transfer of power. If he said that, I believe that the position of the Europeans in Rhodesia would be much better safeguarded than by anything else that can be done.
Lord Greenhill met a group of white business men and, I believe, some black business men. I cannot say anything about the attitudes that he found at those meetings. He reported to me generally.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any greater awareness now among the Rhodcsian regime, or the white minority in Rhodcsia, of the reality of what is going on around them in Africa, and whether there is a recognition that the alternative is either a quick transfer towards majority rule or an armed struggle? Did Lord Greenhill raise the question of the future role of Mr. Garfield Todd? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of us in the House view with some concern the fact that Mr. Todd, having been here for three weeks, is apparently returning to detention?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Lord Greenhill did not raise the question of Mr. Todd. Mr. Nkomo said that he would like him to be associated with his negotiations. I do not think that anything Lord Green-hill could have done would have assisted in that regard.
I fear that I must leave the House in some dubiety regarding the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The House must draw its own conclusions. There was some encouragement yesterday, although I have no idea what went on. The important things is that Mr. Smith should say quite simply to his European followers that they must accept the need for an African majority. Once he says that, many other things will begin to be much easier. So far he has not said that.

Mr. Luard: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the willingness of Mr. Smith to seek a settlement depends now as always, and above all, on the attitude of the South African Government and the degree to which they will apply United Nations sanctions? Will he tell us whether he is seeking to bring home to that Government how urgently necessary

it is, for their own sake as well as that of Rhodesia, to ensure that Mr. Smith appreciates the necessity of bringing about a settlement as early as possible?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the influence of the South African Government is very great, but it is not the dominant factor. Mr. Smith is his own man and will go his own way. I am still not quite sure whether he is to go to Heaven or perdition.

Mr. William Hamilton: We are.

Mr. Callaghan: That may be, but Mr. Smith has the capacity to carry the Europeans with him if he will once make the great mental leap that is necessary. He could then salve his own reputation for his past misdeeds and safeguard the future of the Europeans in Rhodesia. I do not know whether that is possible. That is why I say that we must wait and see. There is nothing in his record to indicate that he is willing to take that action. We have done our best to impress the facts of the situation on the South African Government. As I think is known, one of my senior officials was there not so long ago.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that any help which is proffered or afforded by the United Kingdom does not involve or imply any kind of commitment which this country is unwilling or unable to sustain?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a general statement which, of course, I accept. However, there are clearly circumstances in which if there were an agreement on majority rule, and the manner of its implementation, the House would want to assist in the attainment of that objective, an objective for which the House has stood for so long.

Mr. Rose: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that as force was ruled out by the Prime Minister after UDI, there will be no British military connection during these explorations or negotiations to pull Mr. Smith's chestnuts out of the fire after a decade of defiance by the tiny white minority in Rhodesia?

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, I cannot see the force of that question. I cannot imagine any British Government, whether from this side of the House or


the other, putting in armed force to support Mr. Smith in a course which is undoubtedly wrong and in a war which he will undoubtedly lose.

Sir G. Sinclair: Is the Secretary of State confident that negotiations are taking place between Mr. Ian Smith and the competent African parties? By competent, I mean parties representing the main underlying African political forces seeking majority rule.

Mr. Callaghan: It is not for me to judge who should be involved in the negotiations which are being undertaken by Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Smith. There is no doubt that there are many forces outside Rhodesia who have a part to play, and whose influence will grow the longer that the talks between Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo are unsettled. They will grow in the direction of a growing guerrilla war. I believe that that is understood, but it should be made clear to the European population.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In contrast to what Bishop Muzorewa said last week, is it the case that Mr. Nkomo accepts that there is a locus for the British Government in relation to the negotiations going on between him and Mr. Ian Smith? Was there any prior information given to Lord Greenhill about the so-called breakthrough in the talks that we heard about yesterday?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. No information was given to Lord Greenhill about that matter. I have no idea what passed between the two.
In regard to the locus of the British Government, it is true that Mr. Nkomo and the four African Presidents have always been anxious that Britain should play a greater part in this matter. I wish to make clear, in view of the way in which some of this information came out of Salisbury, that the first approaches indicating that Mr. Smith would like the British Government to play a part came from Mr. Smith, not from me. I hope that that is clearly understood.
The House will appreciate that I am proceeding cautiously and warily in this matter. We did not start these negotiations between Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo. We do not know to what extent both sides

are fully represented. We want to secure the transfer of power to the African majority by peaceful means as quickly as possible and in as orderly a way as possible.

Mr. Amery: In the event of Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo reaching agreement leading to a provisional Government and a period of transition, is the Foreign Secretary prepared to say that in such an event Her Majesty's Government will give all possible support, moral, material and if necessary military, to protect Rhodesia against invasion from outside?

Mr. Callaghan: Any question that begins with the phrase "in the event of" is clearly hypothetical and is not intended for answer by me from this Dispatch Box.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Although everybody realises that majority rule should be obtained by peaceful means and as early as possible, will it not be obtained by other means if Smith does not settle the issue quickly? As well as keeping the House informed, will my right hon. Friend keep informed such leaders of African countries as Sir Seretse Khama, Mr. Kaunda, Mr. Nyere, Mr. Machel and Mr. Neto?

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend is right to believe that if and when the talks break down there will be a growing acceleration of military activity. No doubt that can be contained by the European forces for a time—I emphasise "for a time"—but in the end they will not prevail. That is the reality of the situation. It is not a question of what anybody wants but of what will happen. When one is dealing from this Dispatch Box with the future of Africans and Europeans, one must deal in facts, not in wishes. It is my profound wish, and I imagine it is the wish of nearly everybody in this House, that Africans and Europeans should have a peaceful future in Rhodesia. That must be our objective.
As for the question of keeping African Presidents informed, certainly, Sir that will happen. They have a great deal of influence in this situation and we must march in step with them as far as possible, although clearly we must reserve our own freedom of action. I was fortunate enough to have conversations with Sir Seretse Khama only last Friday.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to form any impression, with the assistance of Lord Greenhill's report, about the likelihood of the transfer of power to the African majority being followed by a genuine pluralistic democracy? Would not assurances on this point be of great value in leading to an acceptance of the position, as there are unfortunate precedents to the contrary in the Continent of Africa?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, there are, but I have not yet been able to form an opinion whether the Europeans in Rhodesia and the régime there are ready to come to terms with the facts of the situation. Until they do so and acknowledge that there is an inevitability of a rapid transfer of power to the African majority—and that will come either by negotiation or through guerrilla activity—I do not think that we shall be able to proceed on to those further calculations.

Several Hon Members: Several Hon Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the matter now.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: I must now rule upon the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). It concerns the contents of a letter written to the Northern Scot newspaper by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).
It is not for me to make any comments either upon the political arguments reflected in that letter or upon the manner in which it is written. All I have to say is whether I consider that I ought to give precedence over the Orders of the Day to a motion concerning this complaint. I cannot find any reason for so doing.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance? I am very disappointed with your ruling——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may be disappointed, but it is not

customary, nor is it indeed the way of this House once it has been given, to seek to discuss a ruling in any way whatever.

Mr. William Hamilton: I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Is there any step I can take to try to ensure that this matter comes before the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are many means of pursuing this matter—and that applies both to the hon. Lady and to himself. But I want to keep in the middle.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Sir Bernard Braine: I wish to raise a matter of privilege of which I have given you previous notice. My complaint is based on reports in The Times and The Guardian newspapers today, where it is reported that the National Abortion Campaign has refused to give any evidence before the House of Commons Select Committee on Abortion. In The Times newspaper a spokesman of the National Abortion Campaign Steering Committee is reported as saying:
We will boycott the Select Committee and encourage other organisations to boycott the Committee.
A little later the spokesman is reported as saying:
We hope to discredit the illusion of a fair Select Committee. There is no way that this Committee can look at our evidence logically and fairly".
The Guardian newspaper report is of a similar nature, and I refer particularly to the following words:
The National Abortion Campaign bluntly said 'We believe that it will serve no purpose to talk to MPs who are already poised to restrict the existing abortion legislation'".
The House will recall that we set up a Select Committee on 9th February. Accordingly those statements as reported are, I submit, a gross contempt of the House as a whole since the organisation concerned is saying unequivocally, first, that a Committee set up by a majority of the House should be boycotted and, secondly, that it will encourage others not to give evidence to the Select Committee.
I respectfully ask you, Sir, to rule, first, that these statements are, in the words of


"Erskine May", a "reflection on Members"—that is to say, the suggestion is that the House which set up the Select Committee has no authority worthy of respect and is incapable of considering important matters fairly and objectively. Secondly, I would ask you to rule that such statements are calculated to deter other witnesses from giving evidence and are clearly meant to have that effect.
May I conclude by saying that in all the years I have been a Member of the House I cannot recall a more serious and blatant attempt to frustrate the Members of this House in carrying out the onerous duties assigned to them by the majority of their colleagues. I respectfully ask you to rule on this grave matter.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman bring the newspapers to the Table?

Newspapers handed in.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. I shall consider his complaint and give my ruling tomorrow.

BILL PRESENTED

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, &c.

Mrs. Secretary Williams, supported by Mr. Secretary Jenkins, Mr. Secretary Varley, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Secretary Rees, Mr. Frederick Peart and Mr. Alan Williams, presented a Bill to amend certain enactments relating to weights and measures; and to make provision for the alleviation of shortages of food and other goods: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That the Glanford and Scunthorpe (Areas) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 188) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Mr. Speaker: To save the time of the House, unless there is an objection——

Mr. Spearing: Objection.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the objection in a moment when I have finished the sentence. I intended to put together the Questions on the two motions, but if there is an objection I shall not do so.

The Question is,

That the Glanford and Scunthorpe (Areas) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 188) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

Hon. Members: Aye.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Then I shall have to collect the voices. I shall require those hon. Members who are opposed to the motion to stand.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that a period of two minutes must elapse before use is made of the Standing Order whereby you may test the feeling of the House by the special procedure to which you referred.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not quite right, according to the advice I have received. I am entitled to do it after the second time of asking. I will put the Question again.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 12.

Division No. 74.]
AYES
[3.54 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Ashton, Joe
Corbett, Robin
Evans, John (Newton)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crawshaw, Richard
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Bean, R. E.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Freeson, Reginald


Bradley, Tom
Deakins, Eric
Freud, Clement


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dempsey, James
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Buchan, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Ginsburg, David


Campbell, Ian
Duffy, A. E. P.
Gourlay, Harry


Cartwright, John
Dunn, James A.
Grocott, Bruce


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cohen, Stanley
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Coleman, Donald
English, Michael
Hardy, Peter


Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Harper, Joseph




Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hatton, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Meacher, Michael
Stoddart, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Hooley, Frank
Millan, Bruce
Stott, Roger


Horam, John
Molloy, William
Strang, Gavin


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Newens, Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pardoe, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, George
Tierney, Sydney


Hunter, Adam
Parker, John
Tinn, James


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pavitt, Laurie
Tomlinson, John


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Penhaligon, David
Torney, Tom


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)
Urwin, T. W.


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Radice, Giles
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Judd, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn
Watkins, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Weetch, Ken


Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul B.
White, James (Pollock)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Whitlock, William


Loyden, Eddie
Rowlands, Ted
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Selby, Harry
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


McCartney, Hugh
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Woof, Robert


McElhone, Frank
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Young, David (Bolton E)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Silverman, Julius



Mackenzie, Gregor
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Madden, Max
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. John Ellis.


Magee, Bryan






NOES


Canavan, Dennis
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wise, Mrs Auarey


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Sedgemore, Brian



Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lambie, David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Lipton, Marcus
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mr. George Cunningham.


Maynard, Miss Joan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Glanford and Scunthorpe (Areas) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 188) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SOLICITORS)

Motion made, and Question put,

That the draft Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. DONALD COLEMAN and Mr. A. W. STALLARD were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Ordered,
That the draft Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question put,
That the matter of Housing in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. DONALD COLEMAN and Mr. A. W. STALLARD were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Ordered,
That the matter of Housing in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.

TRANSPORT (AMENDMENT)

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Transport Act 1968.
[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has a right to be heard in reasonable silence.

Mr. Gow: Under Section 127 of the Road Traffic Act I960, it is unlawful to operate a bus except under licence issued by the Traffic Commissioners. Section 134 provides a penalty, either a fine or imprisonment, for any person who operates a bus without a licence. Section 135 lays down the criteria to which the Traffic Commissioners shall have regard in deciding whether to grant or refuse any such licence. Section 30 of the Transport Act 1968 relaxed marginally the provisions of Section 135 of the 1960 Act.
The Bill which I seek leave to introduce would relax very much further the criteria which have to be applied by the Traffic Commissioners so that, provided the Commissioners are satisfied that the crucial safety provisions of the 1960 Act are being complied with, they must grant a licence. Under the law as it stands, following the practice of the Commissioners and upheld by the Minister on appeal, in effect, wherever and whenever the National Bus Company, any of its subsidiaries or British Rail objects to a licence being granted to a private bus operator, the application is refused.
There are three objections to the present licensing system. First, the criteria for issuing licences are all wrong. Why should the Traffic Commissioners be charged, as they now are, with deciding the suitability of the routes on which a new service is to be provided? Why should they decide the extent to which the routes concerned are adequately served already? Why should they—and, on appeal, the Minister—decide whether the proposed new service is, to use the words of the Act,
… necessary or desirable in the public interest"?
Is not the public interest best served by allowing the market, rather than officials appointed by the Department of

the Environment, to decide where the public interest lies?
The experience of the 15 years since the Act was passed has shown that Traffic Commissioners and Ministers do not know best, that the public whom they are supposed to serve are fed up with both the cost and the quality of public transport and that the bureaucracy which it was thought would protect the citizen has become the citizen's scourge.
Second, the 1960 criteria, however well-intentioned, have served only to preserve the costly, loss-making State monopolies of British Rail and the National Bus Company. I am anxious, as the House knows, to assist the Government wherever I can. In paragraph 1.5 of their document "Criteria for Assistance to Industry", published only last December, we find these immortal words:
It is for the State to establish the broad social and economic framework within which industry operates by measures … to check monopolistic tendencies.
I emphasise those last words. This is an anti-monopoly Bill, an anti-State monopoly Bill. It seeks to help the Government along their own declared path.
Third, the present criteria are manifestly divorced from the needs and requirements of the people. The people want this outdated, discredited and bureaucratic system of licensing to be scrapped. I give two examples. Gastonia Coaches Limited has applied to the Traffic Commissioners for a licence to operate a service for commuters from Cranleigh and Ewhurst in Surrey to London. The company estimates that a commuter bus service could save passengers up to £6 a week in comparison with the rail fares which will operate from the 20th of this month. However, as the criteria stand, it is most unlikely that a licence will be granted because the service would take traffic from British Rail.
I should like to quote from a letter from a commuter to the managing director of this company on 23rd February:
Concerning your plan to run a service from Ewhurst to Waterloo, may I say that you have my unreserved support? For too long, the public have been treated as a captive and docile market by the nationalised industries and the time has come for a stand to be made. I am certain that your plan, if it is allowed, would be greeted with enthusiasm by the commuting public countrywide.


The Bill will help not only the commuting public but parents who would like to operate a free enterprise system to get their children to school more cheaply. It will help the elderly and the retired who would like to go on coach outings but whose choice is restricted by the licensing system.
A company in my constituency—Waterhouse Coaches Limited of Polegate—applied in October 1974 for permission to run Holiday Coach Tours which were especially designed for old-age pensioners. In March 1975, after two public sittings, the Traffic Commissioners refused to grant the licence, which was opposed by the Maidstone & District Motor Services Limited and by Southdown Motor Services, both subsidiaries of the NBC. An appeal was lodged by the company on 7th May 1975 and was heard by an inspector from the Department of the Environment at the Town Hall, Eastbourne, on 8th December 1975. The inspector's report was received by the Secretary of State only on 13th February and it will be many weeks before a decision is made, even though the application was originally lodged 17 months ago.
Of course, the monopolies fear and detest competition. They hate the disciplines of the market economy. For them, the preservation of the status quo is more important than service to the public. In 1951 the Tory Party gained power on the basis of Winston Churchill's promise to set the people free. This Bill is inspired by the same motive, because the Tory Party is still committed to that principle.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I should like to oppose this attempt to introduce pernicious legislation.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) suggested that the criteria applied by the Traffic Commissioners should be relaxed. The implication of his speech was that in certain circum stances the Commissioners would be forced to grant a licence without being allowed to impose any criteria——

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Except safety.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member should not interrupt from a seated position.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Member give way? He is quite inaccurate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful, Sir.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Sir, for preventing those interruptions.
The three objectives which the Traffic Commissioners have a duty to apply seem entirely satisfactory. They decide on the routes and their suitability and whether a route is necessary or desirable in the public interest. That has been so since the 1931 Road Traffic Act, when unfettered competition reigned in the way the hon. Member for Eastbourne described. It became clear to the Government of the day that competition was not beneficial to the public, that many routes were being eroded because they were not profitable and that the market forces were concentrating only on the profitable routes.
If the Bill is given a First Reading, that sort of situation will prevail again. Profitable routes will be applied for, but the National Bus Company also provides services on existing routes which are not profitable. If the profitable routes were eroded through the operation of the legislative proposals to which we have been listening today, this would mean that even greater losses would be sustained by the State-owned National Bus Company. The high standards which have been established by its services ought to be, and in our view must be, maintained.
The aim should be not to reduce the 1968 Transport Act but to extend it and certainly to implement those sections which would lead to an integrated transport system. The hon. Member for Eastbourne mentioned, for example, the duplication of rail and bus services. We want to see those services integrated. We do not want to see any kind of competitive tendency which would erode


services which are lacking in profitability or concentration on profitable services to the detriment of both the National Bus Company's services and the rail services. Any hon. Member who has the interest of a public vehicle service at heart or who has an interest in maintaining the existing 11,000 miles of rail network must in all conscience vote

against this pernicious piece of legislation which has been proposed today.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13(Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 150.

Division No. 75.]
AYES
[4.22 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John


Banks, Robert
Hicks, Robert
Pardoe, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Higgins, Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Holland, Philip
Penhaligon, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Biffen, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Body, Richard
Hunt, John
Rathbone, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rifkind, Malcolm


Budgen, Nick
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bulmer, Esmond
Kimball, Marcus
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Burden, F. A.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sainsbury, Tim


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lamont, Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James


Churchill, W. S.
Lane, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, Colin


Cope, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sinclair, Sir George


Corrie, John
Lawrence, lvan
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lloyd, Ian
Sproat, Iain


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luce, Richard
Stanley, John


Dunlop, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stradling Thomas, J.


Durant, Tony
McCusker, H.
Tapsell, Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macfarlane, Neil
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Tebbit, Norman


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Townsend, Cyril D


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mather, Carol
Trotter, Neville


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Maude, Angus
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Freud, Clement
Molyneaux, James
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Monro, Hector
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Montgomery, Fergus
Walters, Dennis


Goodhart, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Warren, Kenneth


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Weatherill, Bernard


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gray, Hamish
Mudd, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Neave, Airey
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael
Mr Ian Gow and


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Nigel Lawson.




NOES


Ashton, Joe
Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Coleman, Donald
English, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Evans, John (Newton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Corbett, Robin
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Boardman, H.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Flannery, Martin


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bradley, Tom
Crawshaw, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Forrester, John


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dalyell, Tam
Fry, Peter


Buchan, Norman
Davidson, Arthur
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Campbell, Ian
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Gilbert, Dr John


Canavan, Dennis
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Ginsburg, David


Cant, R. B
Dempsey, James
Gould, Bryan


Carmichael, Neil
Dormand, J. D.
Grocott, Bruce


Carter-Jones Lewis
Dunn, James A.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cartwright John
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hardy, Peter




Harper, Joseph
Magee, Bryan
Spearing, Nigel


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marks, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Hatton, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stallard, A. W.


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stoddart, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stott, Roger


Hooley, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Strang, Gavin


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hunter, Adam
Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Park, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Parry, Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie
Tinn, James


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tomlinson, John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Radice, Giles
Torney, Tom


Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tuck, Raphael


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Urwin, T. W.


Lambie, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lamborn, Harry
Roderick, Caerwyn
Watkins, David


Lamond, James
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
White, James (Pollok)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rooker, J. W.
Whitlock, William


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton and Slough)
Rose, Paul B.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lipton, Marcus
Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Loyden, Eddie
Selby, Harry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Woof, Robert


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Young, David (Bolton E)


McCartney, Hugh
Sillars, James
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius



MacFarquhar, Roderick
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Small, William
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Mackintosh, John P.
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Mr. Russell Kerr.


Madden, Max

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — FATAL ACCIDENTS AND SUDDEN DEATHS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.31 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill is primarily a measure of law reform, consolidating and amending as it does the legislation governing public inquiries into deaths in Scotland and modernising the procedure to be followed at such inquiries.
The Grant Committee on the Sheriff Court, in its Report published in July 1967, made several recommendations regarding such inquiries. With one important exception, which I shall explain later, the Bill implements those recommendations.
The most important change made by the Bill is that, in future, public inquiries will be held by the sheriff sitting alone instead of by the sheriff with a jury of seven people. This should effect a considerable saving of time and expense. The Grant Committee pointed out that the use of juries in such inquiries had ceased to be useful, with the jury merely rubber-stamping a verdict dictated by the sheriff. In addition to this, the Bill makes a number of other procedural changes and clarifies the powers of the sheriff. All this should help inquiries to be conducted more effectively and more efficiently.
One aspect of the Bill is of major topical importance and reflects the urgent need for new legislation. This is the extension of the power to hold public inquiries into deaths occurring in oil operations on that part of the Continental Shelf to which the law of Scotland applies. There have been many deaths, particularly of divers, in the course of such operations, and this has aroused public disquiet. The Department of Energy's inspectors can at present investigate them, and these deaths may, in appropriate cases, give rise to civil or criminal liability. But there is also a need for the facts of such deaths to be clearly determined to the satisfaction of the public

in the same way as industrial deaths or accidental deaths on land.
The legal basis for holding such Continental Shelf inquiries was uncertain to such an extent that I found it necessary last year to direct procurators fiscal not to proceed with such inquiries until a firmer legal basis could be provided. A partial improvement was effected by the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Order 1975, which came into force on 20th November 1975 and gave the sheriff jurisdiction to hold inquiries into Continental Shelf oil deaths, but only where the cause of death was clearly the act or omission of some person. This restriction was necessary to keep within the limits of the parent Act, the Continental Shelf Act 1964, under which the Order was made. Such a restricted provision is, however, clearly only a partial remedy. There cannot be too many cases where the possibility of accident can be ruled out before there has been an inquiry, and where the death was plainly accidental there could be no inquiry under the Order.
The solution which the Government have adopted is to give the sheriff jurisdiction to hold inquiries into all deaths occurring on the Continental Shelf in connection with oil and other mineral operations. Clause 9 of the Bill confers that jurisdiction.
But what about deaths which have already occurred before a proper machinery for inquiry has been brought into force? Once that machinery is in existence, there seems no good reason why it should not be used to inquire into such deaths where there is strong ground for a public inquiry and where there is a reasonable prospect that the facts can be established. Accordingly, the Bill empowers the Lord Advocate to order inquiries into deaths occurring up to three years before the Bill becomes law. This provision is not retrospective in the technical or constitutionally objectionable sense. It merely allows future inquiry into past deaths without altering anyone's rights at or after the date of death.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman come to any preliminary view about the number of such inquiries that he is likely to believe to be desirable, given the number of deaths


which have already occurred in the course of North Sea oil explorations?

The Lord Advocate: Obviously some consideration has been given to this matter. If, however, Parliament confers the power, it is right that each case should be considered on its merits, and I propose to do just that. However, perhaps later, once the Bill is enacted, the hon. Gentleman will inquire about progress, in which case I shall be happy to inform him.
Turning from the rather special case of Continental Shelf deaths to more mundane routine matters, it might be useful if I gave a short outline of the circumstances giving rise to public inquiries into deaths in Scotland under present legislation.
The present provisions are, first, the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895, which provides for a compulsory inquiry into any death resulting from accident during industrial employment; secondly, the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952, which provides in Section 26(2) for a compulsory inquiry into the death of a person confined in a prison or other penal institution; and, thirdly, the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1906, which gives the Lord Advocate discretion to order an inquiry into any sudden or suspicious death where he considers that to be in the public interest.
The Grant Committee recommended that there should no longer be a compulsory inquiry into every death resulting from an industrial accident, and instead recommended that these inquiries should be at the Lord Advocate's discretion. Following extensive consultations with affected interests, however, I came to the conclusion that this recommendation should not be followed.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman list the interests which he consulted?

The Lord Advocate: I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman a list of the bodies consulted. They were the Faculty of Advocates, the Association of Sheriffs Principal, the Sheriffs' Association, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the CBI Scottish Council, the Association of Police

Officers, Scotland, the Chief Fire Officers' Association, the BMA Scottish Council, the Society of Procurators Fiscal, the Department of Employment, the Inspectorate of Factories and Mines, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland and the Registrar-General for Scotland. In addition, many other bodies were aware of the consultation document which was issued and some of them made representations.
The Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Trades Union Congress made strong representations in favour of retaining compulsory inquiries. The main arguments were that, if inquiries were not compulsory, there was a risk that a material number of cases of fatal accidents at work would not be fully investigated and that in many cases the employers' version of events, which might appear convincing at first sight, would be accepted without further inquiry. In the result, in some cases where the employers had in fact been at fault this might never come to light. The STUC persisted in these objections. The Law Society was prepared to withdraw its objections but only on the basis that public inquiries would be held in all cases except where the Lord Advocate, in exceptional circumstances, dispensed with an inquiry.
After careful consideration, the Government reached the view that, on balance, it would be wrong to abolish compulsory inquiries in this field, particularly in the face of continued objection from those representing employees, who are, after all, the people most directly concerned.
The Bill therefore provides for the continuation of compulsory as well as discretionary inquiries. Indeed, the opportunity has been taken to extend the scope of compulsory inquiries to meet the wider concept of accidents at work which underlies other recent legislation. The Bill requires an inquiry to be held into death resulting from accident in the course of any work. At present, inquiries need only be held into deaths resulting from accidents in industrial employment—on a definition of "industrial" which is increasingly out of date and difficult to defend. Under the Bill, inquiries will have to be held into deaths resulting from accidents to those at work in offices, shops, schools and hospitals as well as those in factories.
It no longer appears defensible in terms of safety to draw a distinction between industrial and non-industrial employment. No such distinction is drawn in other modern legislation relating to safety at work—for instance, in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. We should be equally concerned with the safety of all people at work—not forgetting employers and self-employed workers who will also be covered by the Bill—and the expanded use of office machinery, for example, has plainly greatly increased the risks involved in non-industrial work.

Mr. Rifkind: By removing one arbitrary distinction the Lord Advocate has created other anomalies. For instance, if two people in a taxi were involved in a fatal accident, it would be necessary under the Bill to have a fatal accident inquiry into the death of the taxi driver because he was in employment at the time, but there would be no inquiry into the death of the passenger who was not in employment. That is an absurd distinction.

The Lord Advocate: It is bound to be the case that one can draw anomalous distinctions at the margins, but I see no great difficulty in this case. There would be a fatal accident inquiry into the death of the taxi driver, which would be of some benefit to his relatives and to the passenger's relatives. On any division there will be loose edges at the margin, but it is important not to perpetuate an illogical and damaging distinction which cannot be defended on its merits. I therefore hope that this extension will receive the support of the House.
In another very different field it seems right that compulsory inquiries should be applied—that is, to the deaths of those in custody. At present it is only the deaths of inmates of prisons and other penal institutions which qualify for compulsory public inquiry. It seems equally desirable that the deaths of persons who have been arrested but who have not yet come before the court should be treated in the same way. I hope that the extension of compulsory inquiries to this area will also be generally welcomed.
The Government have come to the view that a limit on compulsory inquiries is justified in one respect. Where the facts of the death have already been fully

brought out in criminal proceedings, the Bill provides that the Lord Advocate has a discretion to dispense with an inquiry. This is contained in a provision in subsection (2) of Clause 1, which was added to the Bill during its passage in the other House. It should ensure that there is no needless and burdensome duplication of proceedings while preserving the principle that the facts of any such death must be brought out in public.
Before I conclude, I should like to direct the House's attention to certain salient points. I hope to deal with any other points at the end of the debate. Clause 1 is the general clause setting out the circumstances in which public inquiries must be held into deaths. It requires the procurator fiscal, the local public prosecutor working under my ultimate authority, to investigate the death and to apply to the sheriff for an inquiry to be held.

Clause 2 gives the procurator fiscal the right to obtain compulsory statements from witnesses. It is in line with his powers in criminal cases. He did not have this power before, and it should make his investigation more effective.

Clause 6 outlines the findings open to the sheriff at the close of the inquiry. The main change is that it will no longer be necessary to make a finding that someone is at fault. The proper purpose of the inquiry is not to make accusations but to determine the facts. A fatal accident inquiry is not a forum for accusation or condemnation. In such an inquiry there is no reason why the general rule of corroboration should be applied, because there is no accusation and no condemnation. Indeed, corroboration has already ceased to be essential in actions for damages in respect of death or personal injury, and it seems appropriate to relax the rule here too.

Clause 7 allows the Lord Advocate to modify procedure by rules. This was not possible under present legislation. It should allow more flexibility in adjusting procedures to changing circumstances.

Clause 9 makes the important extension of jurisdiction to deaths occurring on the Continental Shelf in connection with oil or other mineral operations.

The Bill should make inquiries into accidental deaths quicker, more effective and less expensive. It will end the


unnecessary and undesirable distinction now drawn between industrial and non-industrial deaths at work. Most important it gives us the vital extension arising out of oil operations on the Continental Shelf adjacent to Scotland. I commend the Bill to the House as a sensible and overdue measure of law reform.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I am happy to give the Bill a qualified welcome. It brings together a certain amount of previous legislation and it introduces a number of useful reforms. With one important exception, the Bill brings forward proposals which first appeared in the consultative document published by the last Conservative Government in 1973. It is clear from the observations of the Lord Advocate and from my interventions that there is strong disagreement over the Government's decision to reject the recommendation of the Grant Committee on fatal accident inquiries involving accidents occurring out of employment.
The subject of fatal accidents and sudden deaths does not cause partisan concern between political parties. Despite the absence of party political content, however, I hope that the House will realise the important nature of the Bill and of the important circumstances in which it will operate. The Bill is literally a matter of life and death. It will deal with human tragedies involving individuals or large numbers of people whenever fatalities occur as a result of accidents and when it is necessary, in the public interest, to establish the facts and try to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
Many of the matters in the Bill are acceptable to hon. Members. The Lord Advocate has pointed out how in future, under the Bill and in accordance with the recommendations of the Grant Committee, it is intended that the sheriff at a fatal accident inquiry will not have a jury of seven people to assist him. I accept that recommendation, but I am conscious that it is a very serious matter to dispense with the presence and participation of a jury in a matter concerned with the public interest. Fatal accident inquiries arise when there has been a disaster which causes considerable public

interest. To dispense with a jury in such circumstances is unusual. Juries are normally accepted as the best guardians of the public interest. Nevertheless, it is quite clear from the recommendations of the Grant Committee that in the case of fatal accident inquiries juries do not perform any useful function.
Paragraph 319 of the evidence to the Grant Committee reads:
the evidence available to us suggsts that the jury usually do no more than give effect to a verdict dictated to them by the sheriff or sheriff-substitute".
The Committee said later:
On balance, we take the view that what is important is the public inquiry and the hearing of the evidence and not the form of the verdict.
One must accept that view and that the public interest will not in practice be harmed by the exclusion of juries from such inquiries. I understand that juries were dispensed with for a number of years during both world wars, without any adverse consequence for the public interest.
There is another area in which there is no disagreement between myself and the Lord Advocate. Clearly it is desirable that the requirement for a fatal accident inquiry should extend to fatalities that take place in the North Sea in the area of the Continental Shelf. We are well aware that in the North Sea there are men who at this very moment are pursuing what might be considered to be the most dangerous occupations in the United Kingdom. In the pursuit of extracting resources from the sea bed, men have for some years risked their lives—with a depressing number of fatalities—in fulfilling their occupations.
It is clearly an unfortunate and unnecessary gap in the law as it has stood until now that in some cases it has not been possible for the Lord Advocate to ensure that there should be inquiries when men have lost their lives in the North Sea. This is perhaps one area where an inquiry can serve its most useful purpose, because the explorations in the North Sea are a new form of technology and we have very little experience to fall back upon in comparison with other occupations and other forms of employment. An inquiry can provide the information and the assessment necessary to ensure that the methods of work


employed in the North Sea are corrected so that the least possible number of fatalities and the least possible number of accidents occur in the future.
There has been some debate and discussion whether the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts over the North Sea should be assumed to have some political significance concerning North Sea oil. I simply stress that when we are considering questions of the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts it is very dangerous to assume that jurisdiction and sovereignty are related matters. The Scottish courts have jurisdiction to try a Scotsman for murder whether committed in Patagonia, Peru or Paraguay, and it would be dangerous to imply that that jurisdiction has any political consequence or significance as well.
The third and final area in which I am in broad agreement with the Lord Advocate concerns those who die while in any form of custody. It is clearly desirable that there should be an inquiry in those circumstances. This is not because our police forces or police officers give cause for general doubt but because in any circumstances where a person not at liberty has lost his life, it is clearly desirable in the public interest—and, indeed, in the interest of the police and security forces themselves—that these matters should be brought to public awareness and the full facts established.
I come now to the one area where there is major disagreement between myself and my hon. Friends on the one hand and the Lord Advocate on the other. I refer to the requirement in the legislation that there should be a mandatory inquiry irrespective of the circumstances, and irrespective of the views of the Lord Advocate, whenever there is a fatality arising out of employment.
As the Lord Advocate has indicated, the situation ever since the 1885 Act has been that a mandatory inquiry has been necessary only when there has been a fatality arising out of industrial employment. It is perhaps useful to look at what the Grant Committee said about that situation. Its views were in no way qualified and in no way ambivalent. They were quite definite. The Committee said, at paragraph 317:
We take the view, along with the majority of our witnesses, that the compulsory fatal

accident inquiry under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895 serves no very useful purpose and should be abolished. We understand that the evidence seldom does more than establish the cause of death, which usually is already known, and that many sheriffs and sheriffs-substitute make it their business to prevent the proceedings from going wider. The jury's verdict tends to be more or less dictated to it by the sheriff or sheriff-substitute. Inquiries of this kind may have served a useful purpose in the industrial conditions that prevailed at the end of last century, but the existence of an effective corps of factory inspectors and inspectors of mines, and the enforcement of the Factories Acts and similiar legislation, in our view provides a more effective method of dealing with problems arising out of working conditions. We are not convinced that inquiries of this kind provide the relatives of the deceased with helpful information, and we are told that they can be an occasion of acute distress to close relatives. We therefore recommended that the obligatory inquiry under the 1895 Act should disappear.
Those are very strong words, and it is important to stress that neither the Grant Committee nor I suggest that there should never be a fatal accident inquiry. What is suggested, in the view of the Grant Committee and in the view of the vast majority of the witnesses appearing before that Committee, is that, unless there are circumstances which lead the Lord Advocate of the day to believe that an inquiry is in the public interest, it is absurd, unnecessary, wasteful and bureaucratic that there should be an obligatory inquiry irrespective of the circumstances and irrespective of how much of a superficial formality that inquiry will be.
I was interested to see the list of the various groups whose views were sought by the Government in determining their policies for the Bill. As the Lord Advocate indicated, of 14 groups approached for their views only two, the STUC and the Law Society, took a view different from that of the Grant Committee. It is significant that, after discussion with the Government, the Law Society was prepared to withdraw its objections to a considerable extent and to leave ultimately to the discretion of the Lord Advocate the decision whether an inquiry was necessary.
Therefore, we are left simply with one body which believes that an inquiry is necessary. We are obliged to ask what will be the consequences of the decision by the STUC, which is the only body


putting forward opposition to the recommendations of the Grant Committee.

The Lord Advocate: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the words I used—that the Law Society of Scotland was prepared to withdraw its objections and give the Lord Advocate a discretion only in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Rifkind: I noted the words very carefully and read the words used in another place by the Minister of State. The important question is clearly that the Law Society is leaving it to the discretion of the Lord Advocate. He is to be the ultimate arbiter, and that is a fair and reasonable criterion to apply. The question is whether he is to have any discretion, as desired by the Grant Committee, the Law Society and every other body, or whether he should have no discretion at all.
I am surprised and rather saddened that the Lord Advocate should wish to remove from himself any discretion whether it is in the public interest that an inquiry should be held. This is a very important area, and we have to ask ourselves what will be the consequences of this decision.
It is important to stress that the Government are not merely rejecting the Grant Committee's views that an obligatory inquiry is unnecessary. They are doing even worse than that and are extending the sphere of obligatory inquiries to new areas which have never required obligatory inquiries in the past. Indeed, as Lord Wilson of Langside said in another place, the Government have not merely rejected the Grant Committee's recommendations. They have romped off in the other direction. It is necessary for the Lord Advocate to allay slightly more fully and comprehensively the very genuine concern of many of us as to why the Government have found this necessary.
Basically, two reasons have been given to the House for the Government's coming to this decision. First, it is said that it is very often helpful to the legal advisers of people involved in accidents that they should be able to use the evidence that emerges at an inquiry in order to assess whether legal proceedings would be desirable in their clients' interests. No doubt this is the case, and perhaps it explains

the rather unusual sympathy of views between the Law Society and the STUC for once in the lives of both organisations.
I fully understand why the STUC and the Law Society take that view. However, I must stress to the Lord Advocate that the purpose is not to use the sheriff and the sheriff court and the whole inquiry system to provide to either side in potential legal proceedings information which they can easily obtain at their own expense by means of taking precognition from the individual witnesses. That should not be the purpose of the requirement of a fatal accident inquiry. By itself it is not a matter in support of which the public interest would require the weighty advice of the Grant Committee to be rejected.
The final reason for rejection of the Grant Committee's views is left in the hands of the Government. The Government believe that in the general interests of safety it is desirable that an inquiry should always be held when a fatal accident arises out of the course of employment. One can sympathise with the Government's taking that view, but one is entitled to press whether that view has any sound basis.
If the Government's concern is to promote the interests of safety, they have failed to indicate why the need for an inquiry should be concerned only with a fatality. The Lord Advocate will know that the vast majority of accidents in industry and other forms of employment do not result in fatalities and, indeed, have no severe or dangerous consequences. He will also know, because it has been well documented, that accidents which result in fatalities are not necessarily the most serious accidents. It is often a purely arbitrary matter whether an accident sadly results in a person's death or bears no relation of that kind.
The general objective of improving safety does not require a system of fatal accident inquiries to increase and enhance the area of safety which is involved. Clearly the fatalities involved, which are fortunately a relatively small number each year, are a tiny tip of the iceberg of industrial accidents and accidents arising out of other employment. That, by itself, cannot meet this requirement.
There is another consideration. As indicated by the Grant Committee, it


might have been desirable to have mandatory inquiries into accidents arising out of employment 80 years ago when the original 1895 Act was introduced and when the area of legislation covering employment and safety at work was much reduced. But that is not the situation today. We now have a whole host of legislation covering particularly dangerous spheres of employment specifically concerned with promoting safety and allowing inquiries where fatalities occur. We have, for example, the Hydrogen Cyanide (Fumigation) Act 1937, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 concerned with all underground work, the Factories Act 1961 concerned with industrial and other employment, the Pipelines Act 1962, the Gas Act 1965, the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act passed by this Government in 1974.
Each of those measures allows for inquiries. Of particular significance is the fact that in each example of legislation passed during the last 70 years in areas which have special dangers to employees, the decision whether to have an inquiry in the event of an accident is not mandatory but is discretionary. The Lord Advocate has discretion to decide whether, in the circumstances, an inquiry is necessary.
If it has proved acceptable in each of those modern statutes, dealing with particularly dangerous forms of employment, to allow discretion to the Lord Advocate, why is it necessary to insist on a mandatory inquiry in every accident which occurs from now on arising out of employment?
My final objection—I make no apology for concentrating on it—is that this measure replaces one artificial concept by another which is even more absurd and unjustifiable. I accept the Lord Advocate's view that it is unnecessary and undesirable to have a distinction between accidents arising out of industrial employment and accidents arising out of any other form of employment. However, my answer would be that neither should require a mandatory inquiry.
We are not putting forward any partial or artificial criteria. However, when the Lord Advocate insists that accidents in employment should have mandatory

inquiries but that other fatalities should not, he is becoming responsible for an artificial and absurd distinction. I put to the Lord Advocate the example of the taxi driver and passenger who are both killed in the same accident. It is mandatory, and legally required, for an inquiry to be held into the death of the one but not of the other. I am aware that, as the Lord Advocate pointed out, if an inquiry were held it would obviously cover both. But does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the absurdity of a law which insists on a mandatory inquiry for one and requires no inquiry into the death of another person killed in the same accident in identical circumstances?
There are other examples. If a shopkeeper and a customer both die in a fire in a shop, the shopkeeper's death requires a mandatory inquiry but the customer's death does not.
The Bill covers the self-employed. If a self-employed person has a heart attack at his work, it will be necessary in all circumstances for a full-scale inquiry to be held, although it will be a formality and a nonsense.
This artificiality cannot be in the public interest. Indeed, it was rejected by the Grant Committee and by everyone who gave evidence both to that Committee and to the Government, with the solitary exception of the STUC and, to a limited extent, the Law Society, both of which have a similar interest in this limited sphere.
We shall seek to change the Bill in Committee regarding this matter. We shall look for a more satisfactory explanation from the Government for rejecting the recommendations of the Grant Committee. We shall look for explanations which will take some account of the time, the expense and the effort which will be involved for the sheriffs, their staff, and those who serve the courts in hearing these inquiries.
I submit that if it is desired to bring to the attention of the public those fatal accidents which have important policy considerations in their background, as it were, we are more likely to achieve that result by limiting public inquiries to the matters in which the Lord Advocate, in the exercise of his discretion, believes that such inquiries are necessary.
The discretion which I should propose to give to the Lord Advocate would enable him to call for an inquiry into virtually every fatality if he so chose. I do not think that he would so choose. The fact that he would not so choose is evidence of the general accepted, understood belief of all of us that many inquiries in the past have served no real useful purpose. They are formalities. It is unfortunate that our courts, particularly sheriff courts, which are already overburdened with work, should be required to go through this meaningless charade for cometic purposes which serve no useful purpose.
I hope that the Government will give some flexible consideration to these representations. With the exception of that particular provision, this is a good Bill. It puts forward desirable reforms, it consolidates measures which require to be consolidated and it is worthy of support. I hope that, on this one matter, the Lord Advocate will show himself not to have a closed mind and to be prepared to accept a useful and desirable change to the Bill.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I recall that on an occasion when I was professionally engaged with the Lord Advocate he considered that the 1895 Act was passed so long ago as not to be relevant to modern circumstances. Therefore, I think it important that I declare an interest as a lawyer. Lawyers are under suspicion at the moment.
The Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895 was introduced because—as the Lord Advocate 80 years later adumbrated would happen which is an unfortunate suggestion—the real cause of death might be hidden by employers from the public or the inquiry officers. That Act required that
all cases of death of any person or persons, whether employers or employed, engaged in any industrial employment or occupation in Scotland, due or reasonably believed to be due to an accident occuring in the course of such employment or occupation 
should be inquired into.
It was clearly important in days when there were few regulations or statutory obligations on employers that when a death occurred the public should be reassured

and should discover the genuine cause of death. However, during the course of the past 80 years an enormous band of legislation covering every possible form of employment, whether it be the Shops Act or any other Act, has come to pass. Accordingly, the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895 is now, for all genuine purposes, extinct and irrelevant.
The Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1906 extended the concept of mandatory inquiries. I emphasise that they were enquiries and not trials. The process was extended at the instance of the Lord Advocate to sudden or suspicious deaths. It is important that we see the intention of these two pieces of legislation, which were passed respectively 80 and 70 years ago. We must consider whether the extension of such legislation—ignoring all that has happened since—is sensible.
The undoubted intention of the 1895 Act was, first, to allay public fear that persons might die at work for all sorts of reasons which were never disclosed and that the matter might be hushed up; secondly to stimulate the safety of the work force. Neither of those motivations can be claimed to be relevant today.
The provisions of the later Act were designed to allay public alarm when there was suspicion about a death, and, in cases where there was no prosecution, the public were allowed to see that it was right that there had not been a prosecution. I am entirely in favour of the proposal, which follows the provisions of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 that where deaths occur in situations which are inevitably private and to that extent secret, there should be a full public inquiry to ensure that the public is reassured that what happens in private and secret does not remain private and secret.
It was because in 1895 there was a risk that what happened in factories would remain private and secret that the Act was necessary at all. What happens in factories now does not remain in the least private or secret. I regret to say that I find it generally offensive that the Lord Advocate should justify the Bill on the basis that, and I quote his words, "If there were not an inquiry, a fatal accident would not be investigated properly


and the employer's version would be accepted". I find that a most extraordinary doctrine. I cannot conceive why the Lord Advocate imagines that it has a basis in truth.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman is substantially quoting from the representations made by the Law Society of Scotland.

Mr. Fairbairn: I was not quoting from any recommendations of the Law Society of Scotland, of which the Lord Advocate is not a member. I was quoting the words which the Lord Advocate had just used. I wrote down his words. As he knows, I greatly value what he says and I frequently write it down. In this instance he said "If there were not an inquiry, a fatal accident would not be investigated properly and the employer's version would be accepted". I cannot understand the basis for such an offensive allegation.
First, after any industrial accident there is bound to be an inquiry. Secondly, there are always witnesses and none is more forthcoming, as the Lord Advocate well knows, in matters of litigation than fellow workmates who are anxious to ensure that the truth is told and the matter is not swept under the carpet. Thirdly, I find it most offensive that it should be alleged—this is the implication of the Lord Advocate's remarks—that employers as a group, whoever they are, be they large or small, rich or poor, are the sort of people who will lie and whose lies will be accepted. That is the implication and that is the sole justification for the Lord Advocate's suggestion that we should have mandatory inquiries lest liars should get away with their lies.
Equally, liars may get away with their lies at an inquiry. If the employers are liars, they are just as likely to get away with their lies at an inquiry as anywhere else. If the employees who say that they witnessed an accident, or that the accident took a certain form, lie, they are just as likely to get away with it at an inquiry. I find it extraordinary that that that should be the sole justification.
Whom did the Lord Advocate consult? He says that 14 bodies were consulted. I regret to say that that is not my information. I am informed that not only

did he not consult the Sheriffs' Association, but he apologised for not having done so. I trust that that information is correct. It seems to me extraordinary that, having set up a committee to investigate the matter at great public expense, he should then accept the view of other interests which disagreed with the Committee. It is the view of the STUC and the Law Society, and no other, that the Lord Advocate has followed.

The Lord Advocate: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to cause confusion. Earlier the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me how many people had been consulted. In reply I gave the list of people to whom the consultative document relating to this matter had been circulated in 1973. It was as a consequence of the submissions by these bodies that the Bill was prepared. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not confuse that with specific consultations by me personally, which is another matter.

Mr. Fairbairn: Now we are getting a little nearer to the truth. The specific consultation which the Lord Advocate had was with the STUC and the Law Society. He did not consult the Sheriffs' Association—the people who listen to inquiries, who hear the results and who know all about them. The Lord Advocate cannot contradict this. Whoever those people were before and whatever their status or rank, they are unanimously opposed to the suggestion of mandatory inquiries of this kind, which are a waste of time and a thoroughly irresponsible action to impose on the Scottish people 80 years after the original legislation.
Let me make it clear that there is a motivation for the STUC and the Law Society to say that there should be mandatory inquiries in all situations in which there is an accident resulting in death in employment—no doubt they would extend it to all accidents. The motivation is, first, to compel the procurator fiscal to find the witnesses at public expense, to get their evidence at public expense and to present it to the court at public expense. From there lawyers could rake around and see whether there was some way in which they could present a case on behalf of the family of the deceased. That does not seem to


me a proper use of public funds in a system which is meant to be inquiring into the cause of death, not the blame for death.
The second reason is that there is an interest in the Law Society. Lawyers are under attack from all sides because they are so expensive and because they allegedly sit there and take the gravy off the roast at every possible opportunity. Here is a case in which they are shown to be doing so. It is to the benefit of lawyers to have fatal accident inquiries, because they have to attend them representing the cousin, the grandmother, the daughter, the wife, or the rest of the family. Then they have to do it all over again at the consequent litigation and again on any other situation which might arise.
It is in the interests, therefore, of the profession to ensure that the gravy train keeps rolling. As a lawyer in a profession under attack, I would not defend for a moment the situation in which the profession was benefiting from unnecessary inquiries which caused immense distress to the relatives.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: As past secretary and president of the Glasgow Bar Association, which comprises almost every court solicitor in Glasgow, numbering about 250, which is more than the Bar in Edinburgh, may I say that we agree with the hon. and learned Member? I understand that we have not been consulted by the Lord Advocate. Our view is that this proposal would involve unnecessary expense and cause unnecessary pain and suffering for those who have to attend the inquiries. We regret that we have to go to them, and the fewer we have to attend the better. We trust the system of public prosecution in Scotland to keep them to a minimum.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am obliged to the hon. Lady, who has given us the benefit of her enormous experience. Once again it appears that the Lord Advocate did not consult those concerned, and that is a matter for distress. I believe that those concerned with these matters are a little closer to them than is the STUC, which has a lot of other important matters to consider.
There are other matters which cause me distress. All the witnesses and relatives

have to go through the process several times, and that is offensive. The evidence which is given in a fatal accident inquiry is always much closer to the event than any consequent litigation and any consequent prosecution. Accordingly, lawyers have an absolute field-day, because they have under their little mitts exactly what the witness said a fortnight, three weeks, or a month after the accident.
They say to a witness "Where was the ladder when he fell off, and how did he fall?" The witness replies "The ladder was two feet from the edge and he fell on his head". The lawyer asks "Do you remember that two and a half years ago you said that the ladder was three feet away and that he fell on his arm? You are lying, are you not?" One of the worst features of these fatal accident inquiries is that they provide lawyers with the capacity to investigate the inevitable fallibility of the human mind, and I find that offensive. The less that opportunity exists the better.
There is another matter of concern. The sheriff is to be entitled to make a large number of findings. He is to be entitled under Clause 4 to ensure that the rules of evidence shall be, as nearly as possible, those applicable in an ordinary civil cause. That is a very dangerous concept. If the sheriff is to make absolute findings under Clause 6 concerning where and when the death took place, the cause or causes of it, any accident resulting in it, and any reasonable precautions which could have been taken, he will be expressing opinions which have nothing to do with the concept of an inquiry as if they had the force of law.
Let us be clear what this Bill will provide. Every Member of Parliament is perpetually on duty and therefore the death of every Member of Parliament in Scotland will have to be a subject for one of these asinine inquiries. The death of every person who dies in a motor accident and the death of anyone who has a heart attack or who is ill at work and dies later will have to be the subject of such an inquiry.
But there are much more important matters. I instance industrial diseases. Those who are injured at work by diseases such as pneumoconiosis and who die will not be the subject of a fatal accident inquiry because pneumoconiosis


is not an accident. There is already legislation which covers almost every form of industrial situation which could arise and into which it would be sensible for the public to have an inquiry. Therefore, it is superfluous, repetitive and wrong to extend legislation which was necessary 80 years ago at a time when there is a vast volume of legislation covering all possible cases.
Why is it mandatory? Either it is because the Lord Advocate's judgment is not trusted by the STUC, or there is another reason. I have always taken the view that the right hon. Gentleman's judgment was impeccable and totally praiseworthy. If any hon. Member is prepared to say that his judgment is not and will not always be perfect, let him stand up and say so. If it is reasonable for the Lord Advocate to say that a case should be inquired into, let us have that system. If there is another reason, which the Bill does not disclose—in order, for example, that lawyers and litigators may find a furrow to their advantage by having inquiries at the public expense and at the expense of the tax on the widow—that is offensive and wrong, and I hope that the Government will take another look at it.
Under Clause 2 the Lord Advocate can avoid such an inquiry if there has been a previous criminal proceeding. It is unlikely from my experience that under Clause 1(2) criminal proceedings will precede inquiries. What worries me much more, and it is a point which I have raised with the Lord Advocate in a number of cases and which he said he was considering in the prospect of the Bill, is the position when a public inquiry precedes criminal proceedings.
There is a system in England, of which I totally disapprove, whereby the rights and wrongs of a prosecution are aired and investigated before the public long before the man presumed to be innocent is tried. There is a danger that if there is a public inquiry into a suspicious death, the Press will publish the finding and recommendations of the jury.
The jury's recommendation at an inquest in England, for instance, is that someone is or is not guilty of something. In the Lord Lucan case the English jury found that the victim was murdered. In

other words, it found that the crime of murder had been committed by someone who has yet to be accused of it and who is presumed to be innocent of it. I find that most abhorrent and contrary to the whole spirit of justice.
I should like the Government to consider inserting a saving clause in the Bill to provide that if the results of an inquiry held into a suspicious death are published, there cannot be a criminal prosecution against any person named in any finding by the sheriff who conducts that inquiry. That is basic to the concept of justice. I ask the Lord Advocate to look into that.
There are improvements in this legislation, but to drag the necessary legislation of the last century into the last quarter of this and to extend it, when all the requirements that the original legislation covered have been covered by superior legislation which has improved industrial safety and allayed public alarm, is wrong. It is very wrong if it is done in order to benefit either lazy or greedy lawyers or litigators who believe that in the ordinary course of justice they would not stand a proper chance of establishing a just claim.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. George Thompson: The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) spoke about the public's fear that the lawyers get the gravy off the roast. Looking at the lawyers in the House this afternoon, I feel sure that most of them could do with a good meal of meat and perhaps they should try the roast beef. I was grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising the lid off the pot slightly for a moment.
My colleagues and I find the Bill much better than the curate's egg: it is good almost all the way through. We are pretty well in agreement with all hon. Members who have spoken so far. The Bill is meant is consolidate the law. That is laudable and the Lord Advocate is setting a good example to other Departments. There are plenty of areas of the law where consolidation is desirable. The Bill is meant to modernise procedure. That is excellent. It is meant to implement the report of the high powered committee that sat under the chairmanship of Lord


Grant. It implements that report, with the exception of the one deviation to which the Lord Advocate referred. It is there that I take exception to what is proposed.
I speak not as a lawyer but simply as a layman looking at the system. I should have agreed with the Grant Committee. However, if the STUC fears a move to the discretionary inquiry into industrial accidents, we should accept its view if only to allay the fears of the men and women for whom it speaks. I assume that we must take it that the STUC speaks from experience of the way the law works as present.
In relation to other fatal accidents in which the Lord Advocate at present has discretion but where, under the Bill, he will no longer have that discretion, I agree with the status quo. Let these inquiries continue to be discretionary. We should begin by asking why we should have change. For instance, the self-employed are to be brought within the provisions of the Bill. Have organisations representing the self-employed asked for mandatory enquiries to cover the death of their members while at work? I meet the self-employed regularly. They write to me frequently, as well as telephoning me. Never in all my encounters with them have they asked me to seek mandatory fatal accident inquiries into the deaths of their members.
If the Government sincerely want to meet the desires of the self-employed they must look to other spheres. Let them look, for instance, at capital transfer tax and effect changes there that will be to the satisfaction of the self-employed. Let the Government abolish the 8 per cent, levy which was imposed last January. Let them abolish or at least simplify VAT. Those are subjects about which the self-employed approach me and ask me to make representations to the Government.
I wonder whether we are not faced with an attempt to make everything neat and tidy. There was an article published in last Saturday's Scotsman which dealt with the "Nanny complex"—Nanny comes rushing forward and sorts out everything. I hope that the Lord Advocate's Department will not participate in that complex with the Scottish Office. I hope that it is not a creeping disease that passes from one Department to another. We should have enough

sense to let well alone and to resist the mere itch for tidiness.
I also wondered whether the Lord Advocate was simply fed up with exercising discretion and desirous of getting rid of the burden. Perhaps he and his officials are in that state, but he does not look as though it is getting him down. He always has a commendable seriousness of expression, but I have often detected a twinkle in his eye, which would not be there if he were over-burdened by his position. If his Department needs encouragement, we should prefer to encourage him and his staff by telling them that they are doing a good job and that the Scottish people appreciate their devoted work. That is why I have not heard of any widespread demands—indeed, any demands at all—for a change in this part of the present system.
Naturally, hon. Members expect someone on this Bench to suspect a further and more desperate disease, namely creeping Anglicisation.

Mr. Iain Sproat: Like divorce law.

Mr. Thompson: I fear that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to go down the path of divorce law reform.

Mr. Fairbairn: I can help the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) on that, although I do not like doing so. He might like to know that the English got the idea for their present divorce law from the minority report of Lord Walker in the 1948 Royal Commission.

Mr. Thompson: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that information, which I shall certainly treasure for use on another occasion.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. and learned Gentleman will charge for it.

Mr. Thompson: I am quite sure it is free, gratis and for nothing.

Mr. Donald Stewart: From a lawyer?

Mr. Thompson: I have conversed with lawyers on many occasions and I have not had to pay on every occasion. I wondered whether the Lord Advocate had been listening to Olivia in Twelfth Night when she says to the clown, anent


that glorious old reprobate, Sir Toby Belch:
Go thou and seek the crowner and let him sit o' my coz;"—
or, whoever it may be—
for he's in the third degree of drink—he's drowned"—
or whatever the case may be. I am sure that that is not the case—that there is no desire to bring the coroner over the border. I am sure that the Bill is a very Scottish Bill, despite an amendment made in another place to which I shall refer later.
The Government owe us sounder reasons for altering a system that has worked well, because other aspects need to be covered forbye the purely legal. There is the personal element. The sheriffs will find their work increased. I notice from a debate in another place that Lord Kirkhill estimated that the number of inquiries would rise by about 30 per cent. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will confirm or deny that. Most of these inquiries, even now, result in a formal verdict. Are we justified in increasing their number without the compelling reason of the public good moving us to do so?
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:
The Bill is unlikely to cause any increase in Government expenditure. The financial effects of any increase in the number of inquiries held resulting from the terms of the Bill should be completely offset by the saving consequent on ceasing to have juries in such inquiries.
Fair enough! We get rid of the seven jurors and we save money. But then we increase the number of cases by 30 per cent, and we have to pay expenses to witnesses and persons, of whom I had never heard until I read the Bill, called "havers", with a short "a".

Mr. Fairbairn: It is pronounced "havers", with a long "a".

Mr. Thompson: That would be even more interesting. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will correct both of us in due course. Certainly if they are pronounced "havers" as I suggest that will lead to considerable laughter upon benches other than mine and in other places.
It is, therefore, by no means certain that we shall save money. I suspect that

probably the opposite will occur. Besides that, sheriffs and procurators fiscal will have to be paid for their services, too—or will the extra work simply be added to what they are expected to do for their salaries? I suppose that that is probably the case.
What of the effect on the non-legal people involved? It must be true of lawyers, as it must be true of doctors, that they are in the habit of dealing with death and the attendant circumstances and that necessarily they have to adopt for the sake of their psychological stability a clinical and objective approach. I am not saying that their hearts are harder than mine or that of anyone else, but they are inured to dealing with these cases.
We are asking relatives to renew their grief, not only in private but in public, and we are doing this in an age when society has so much lost the means of helping people to cope with bereavement. Perhaps we shall be bringing out into the public gaze pitiful little secrets of the family. Perhaps someone who is an alcoholic will be involved. That fact will no doubt be brought out in the inquiry, whereas in present circumstances, unless the Lord Advocate had ordered an inquiry, that would remain hidden from the public.
I have a confession to make, and this being Shrove Tuesday, I suppose that it is the appropriate time to make it, although I hasten to add that it is a sin of which I have long since repented and which I no longer commit. I would that I could say that about all my sins.

Mr. Buchan: They might be more interesting.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The hon. Gentleman should wait until he hears this one.

Mr. Thompson: When I was a youngster, I used to read a Sunday newspaper called the News of the World. Shocking—and I am sure that hon. Members will agree with me in that. It was all that we had to do, sometimes, in the Army on a Sunday afternoon.
Reading the accounts that came from coroner's courts, I used to think to myself "Thank God that we do not have this system in Scotland." Now here we are introducing a little bit of it, at least.


We shall often be providing only the provender for the ghoulish in the media, in society and in ourselves. Is it really necessary for us to do this?
I believe that before we accept the Government's view we must be quite convinced in our own minds and hearts that this distress and this decline of the Scottish social ethos will be largely offset by preponderantly greater benefit to the common good. Unless the Government can satisfy us of that, I am sure that my hon. Friends and I will wish to press them further on the matter in Committee or on Report.
We welcome the extension of the mandatory inquiry to cover the deaths of those who die while in custody though not actually in prison, because we feel that in such cases there is serious public concern. Therefore, the common good must prevail over private grief in this matter.
I very much welcome the extension of the mandatory inquiry to cover fatal accidents and deaths which occur in the Scottish area of the Continental Shelf and which are connected with the exploration for and exploitation of the natural resources on or under the sea bed. In November I asked a Question of the Secretary of State:
how many deaths in oil-related work have occurred since North Sea oil rig building and maintenance began.
The answer was:
The table below shows the numbers of deaths on oil rigs and associated ships reported to the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen. Deaths occurring in other aspects of oil-related work are not separately identifiable as such."—[Official Report, 6th November 1975; Vol. 899, c. 322.]
Leaving aside the associated ships, the figures given to me for oil rigs were three deaths in 1973, nine in 1974 and eight in 1975—to the beginning of November. Therefore, we have 25 deaths that should have been investigated, and I assume that most of them were not investigated because of the scruples that the Crown Office had about the state of the law. Therefore, we are bound to welcome that clause.
I did a comparative study of the Bill as originally introduced into the House of Lords and the Bill as it emerged from their Lordships' House. I discovered a charming little point for what the French call la petitie histoire. I discovered that

there had been an amendment to Clause 9. The original wording was
the Scottish area of the Continental Shelf.
I must say that I thought that some hon. Members would immediately have jumped on me for using that phrase a few moments ago. This phrase caused palpitations in certain noble hearts, and so it was amended. It was said that there were mischievous persons—I cannot think who those might have been—who might use the phrase. Perhaps that fear is understandable, however, if at the next election it is feared that these unnamed persons turn out to have a name and to be and to bear the name legion.
In conclusion, like the official Opposition we give the Bill a qualified welcome.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In speaking immediately after the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson), I can well understand that someone who had to while away his Sundays in the Army by reading the News of the World should be concerned about the ghoulish aspect of the media, their intrusion into private grief and the way in which they sensationalise many tragedies which occur from time to time in accidents. I understand, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman has his doubts—I think that he was expressing them on behalf of the SNP—about the necessity for mandatory inquiries into fatal accidents.
I must say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that it is a great pity that, no matter what is under discussion, the first question that has to be answered by SNP members in their dealing with any Bill is whether it involves creeping Anglicisation. In other words, they decide whether some part of English law is being imported into Scots law and, if so, they begin to wonder whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.

Mr. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that this item was the fourth in the series that I mentioned? Will he further accept that I said quite distinctly that because the STUC wanted to continue the mandatory inquiry into fatal industrial accidents, my hon. Friends and I were prepared to go along with the STUC on the grounds that it was speaking from experience and was worth listening to.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, I do not dispute that at all. Nevertheless, the point that I am making is perfectly valid. This constant repetition—it is no use the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) shaking her head, because if a spokesman of her party says that her party is worried about the possibility of creeping Anglicisation—it sounded a very complicated phrase—I must take it that he means it. My view is that if some part of law of England is superior to what we have in Scotland, by all means let us import it. Let us import law from France, Italy, or anywhere else if by so doing we shall improve our law. If the English legal profession and the English legal departments decided that there was something good in Scots law which they wanted to import into England, I should think that that was something to be pleased about and not necessarily something to complain about.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The evolution of Scots law is a history of comparative study. Scots lawyers have examined the best law to be found in Europe and England and have borrowed what they considered to be good. It is absurd to accuse someone of objecting to Anglicisation for the sake of it when a constructive point is being made about a part of English law that is bad. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) is objecting to that process because it is illogical.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady makes my point. If her hon. Friend the Member for Galloway had said precisely what she has said, there would have been no quarrel. If it is said that it is a bad piece of law and should not be in Scots law, all well and good. However, a piece of law is not necessarily bad because it comes from England.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—

Mr. Hughes: We shall be able to check Hansard tomorrow to see what the hon. Gentleman said, but I think that it is within our memory that he said that he was worried about creeping Anglicisation. I wish that members of the Scottish National Party would not use such phrases. They cast doubt on the way in which they view these matters. I am

glad that in essence the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn agrees that in Scots law we have what is good, irrespective of whether it has come from within Scotland or outside. If members of the SNP take a little more care about expressing themselves, we shall all get along much better.
I agree with the hon. Member for Galloway about Clause 9. It clearly provides that any death or accident which occurs on the Continental Shelf under the Continental Shelf Act 1964 shall be deemed to have happened in Scotland. That is a first-class idea, but I am slightly worried because Schedule 1(3) seems to some extent to modify and contradict what appears in Clause 9. Schedule 1(3) reads:
If an inquiry is held in pursuance of regulations under this Act"—
That is the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971—
into an accident which causes the death of any person, no inquiry with regard to that death shall, unless the Lord Advocate otherwise directs, be held in pursuance of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1975.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate—I apologise for not hearing his opening speech—how Clause 9 and Schedule 1(3) will marry. What will be the criteria? Who will decide whether an inquiry shall be held under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 or under this Bill? It is clear that there is a distinction and in these circumstances it may be that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider it unnecessary to have a fatal accident inquiry. The powers that be who separate the 1971 Act will have to work in close liaison with the Lord Advocate's Department when there is a fatal accident.
There have been all too many fatal accidents in the North Sea since exploration began. We all hope that further tragedies will not take place, but we are aware of the tragedy that took place off the Norwegian coast within the past couple of days. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will tell me how the clause and the schedule will operate, and who will make the decision to have a fatal accident inquiry.
I am interested in Clause 4(2) which provides:
The wife or husband, or the nearest known relative, and the employer … may appear and produce evidence at the inquiry.
I accept much of what the hon. Member for Galloway said about private grief. Much of the grief that comes to my attention is suffered by relatives who feel that something happened at the accident which has been hidden from them. Sometimes they feel that there has been misconduct or carelessness on behalf of the employer. Alternatively, they feel that there has been a lack of proper discussion of safety regulations. Very often they feel that the fatal accident inquiry does not bring out those matters. That is why I am interested to see that Clause 7(1)(b) provides:
The Lord Advocate may, by rules, provide in relation to inquiries under this Act … for the representation, on such conditions as may be specified in the rules, of any person who is entitled by virtue of this Act to appear at the inquiry.
All of us know of different circumstances in which people have felt that they wanted to bring their own experts to fatal accident inquiries to counter the experts of, for example, the oil companies, undertakings which have an immense amount of wealth and expertise at their command. That applies especially to accidents that have taken place during the operations in the North Sea, but it applies to accidents that have taken place on land.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is interested in the affairs of the National Union of Seamen, spent many long hours on a case in which the widow felt that if she could produce her own experts, she could prove that the accident was not the fault of the diver, her husband. She contended that the accident occurred because of a lack of responsibility on the part of the company concerned. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of the interest of my hon. Friend in that case.
What does my right hon. and learned Friend mean by
provide in relation to inquiries … for the representation, on such conditions …"?
Does that mean that there will be a sort of legal aid scheme for relatives that will enable them to employ counsel on their behalf, and, if necessary, experts? This

is a matter that also applies to accidents on land. I have in mind a situation which arose many years ago when a lorry driver was involved in a fatal accident. There was strong suspicion that he had been sent off on a long journey after having worked eight hours for someone else. That suspicion never came out in court, for reasons which are understandable. I think that expert witnesses provided by the widow might have been able to counter the evidence given on behalf of the other side.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will tell us how Clause 9 and Schedule 1(3) will operate together and what he has in mind for the provision of aid and assistance to relatives who wish to pursue a serious case, and perhaps at length, at a fatal accident inquiry.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: begin by making two comments on the speech of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson). My first is that I was largely in agreement with him when I first examined the Bill. When I reached page iii I was delighted to find that the Bill was
unlikely to cause any increase in Government expenditure.
In the last paragraph of the same page we read that the Bill
is unlikely to lead to any increase in the staff either of the procurator fiscal service or of the Scottish courts service.
I am sure that we all wish that more Bills that come before the House would not add to public expenditure, or increase the number of civil servants or staffs of the Departments concerned.
As we look further into the Bill and into the debates in another place we find that while it is true that, on the one hand, we are decreasing expenditure, on the other hand, we are likely to increase the number of inquiries by 30 per cent. I ask the Lord Advocate to quantify in money terms the likely savings and the likely increases so that we can know the true financial position. It is mildly misleading for the Bill to state that its provisions are unlikely to increase Government expenditure when the number of inquiries will increase by 30 per cent., with all the consequent expenses. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will explain the situation a little more fully.
The hon. Member for Galloway mentioned defining the so-called Scottish area of the North Sea. On previous legislation SNP Members attempted in Committee to extrapolate the argument in relation to the British National Oil Corporation by saying that the North Sea came under Scottish law. They claimed that in that way the oil became Scottish oil both now and in the future.
It is necessary to nail that absurd misstatement now so that never again in Standing Committee proceedings can SNP Members say "But the Bill shows that the oil falls within the Scottish sector and is therefore Scottish oil." We now know that two-thirds of the oil lies off the Shetlands and therefore is not Scottish oil. Since another large proportion lies within the English sector, that leaves only a small part to be fought over by the SNP.
The main reason for my contribution to this debate lies in the fact that I wish to make particular reference to Clause 9, which relates to the Continental Shelf. I realise that by taking part in this debate I am almost offering myself as a member of the Standing Committee—a Committee in which there will obviously be a considerable amount of bickering between lawyers on either side, and certainly between the Glasgow and Edinburgh Bars.

Mr. Robert Hughes: If the fact that I have contributed to this debate means that I am laying myself open to membership of the Standing Committee, I shall immediately withdraw every word I have said.

Mr. Sproat: Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, I think that he will discover that he and I will be drafted as Members of that Committee. Incidentally, it was interesting to hear the trade secrets of the legal profession disclosed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). I wish only to point out that a great many hon. Members support the Government's move to set up a Royal Commission on legal charges.
I return to Clause 9. I very much welcome the extension of these provisions to the area of offshore activities, particularly as that is an area where aspects relating to technical exploration and

accident causes are likely to be less known than in other industries. The gravity of the present situation has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. The figures of deaths and serious accidents in the last 10 years as a result of North Sea operations are very grave. We have been told that in the last 10 years there have been 50 deaths and 250 serious accidents.
When considering the situation of divers, we enter an important sub-division of these provisions. A Written Answer by the Minister of State, Department of Energy, informed me that 19 diving deaths and two serious injuries had been reported to the Government up to 26th February of this year. I gather that one of those deaths resulted from natural causes. That answer made clear that:
The figures relate to all diving operations connected with the exploration and exploitation of the United Kingdom continental shelf, including diving from and around oil and gas installations, British registered vessels, other vessels and pipe-laying barges. They also include deaths reported within United Kingdom territorial waters and internal waters under the Factories Act regulations."—[Official Report, 1st March 1976; Vol. 906, c. 427.]
Anybody who has spoken to executives in oil companies knows the great care taken to protect divers. I cast no aspersions on the efficiency of those companies and the care with which they undertake their activities. Nevertheless, it is not surprising that a number of deaths have occurred, and it will not be surprising if many fatal accident inquiries take place if the present situation continues in regard to diving operations. When I looked into the situation, I was amazed to discover that the requirements in respect of diving as laid down in the regulations promulgated in July 1974 were vague and loose. I do not wish to make any party point on this issue. I am merely saying that I cannot understand how Governments past and present have allowed the situation to remain so vague.
I shall not read from the regulations but, by and large, they lay down that nobody shall be allowed to dive if he has not had some experience of diving or of handling diving equipment, but they do not say how much experience such a person requires. That is not good enough. The provisions must be tightened up and no doubt as a result


of this debate and the deliberations in Committee the Government will be urged to improve the situation.
I should like to see some form of licensing arrangement aimed at giving a proper training to divers, with the introduction of proficiency examinations, so that there should be no unnecessary accidents. This is a subject for the operation of the Training Services Agency, together with industry and unions, and I believe that that suggestion could be examined with profit for all. However, apart from those small points, I give a qualified welcome to the Bill.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Gray: We have had a useful, if short, debate on the Bill. Many points have been raised which no doubt will be explored further in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), in giving a qualified welcome to the Bill on behalf of the Opposition, dealt with most of the major changes envisaged in the legislation. He mentioned inquiries carried out by sheriffs rather than by sheriffs and juries as the method to be used in future. He also drew attention to the fact that any accident at work resulting in death will be considered by an inquiry. That process appears to be unnecessary and seems to run counter to the recommendations of the Grant Committee. No doubt that matter can be pursued at a later stage.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) gave an interesting résumé of the 1895 and 1906 Acts of Parliament governing accidents at work. To those of us who are not lawyers, it was interesting to hear him turn away work from his own profession—a practice of which the legal profession is not usually guilty, as I know from my cost when I tried to table an amendment to provide for divorce proceedings to be taken in sheriff courts. I then found the whole weight of the legal opinion in the House ranged against me. I still hope that that matter will be sorted out in legislation which has recently received a Second Reading. Nevertheless, my hon. and learned Friend avoided mentioning the amount of fees. He referred discreetly to fees but went no further.
The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) mentioned the self-employed. I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I have had no representations from the self-employed on this issue. The hon. Gentleman said that the criterion by which the Bill should be measured was its benefits in relation to the common good. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made some interesting points which I shall not go over again. No doubt they were noted by the Lord Advocate, who will probably try to answer them in winding up the debate.
As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) could not resist the opportunity to disagree with the hon. Member for Galloway. My hon. Friend, who comes from a fishing city, usually has the knack, when he drags his net low, of not catching a sprat but invariably landing a Nat.
On a more serious note, we are grateful for the statistics that my hon. Friend gave us about accidents and divers. This is always a matter of great concern to anybody who represents an oil constituency, and my hon. Friend has been very worried about the problems faced by companies in exploration and the tragic deaths which have occurred on too many occasions. The concern over these accidents will be relieved to some extent by the knowledge that in future they will be fully investigated. This is one area in which we have no disagreement with the Bill, though we disagree that it should be extended to all fatal accidents in industry and other forms of work.
I was surprised that the Lord Advocate did not devote more time to Clause 9 of the Bill, to which other hon. Members have referred briefly. It is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. I was equally surprised that the Minister of State in another place paid very little attention to it. He said:
Finally, and most importantly, it enables public inquiries into all cases of fatal accidents connected with oil operations on the Continental Shelf. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships' House."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9th December 1975. Vol. 366, cc. 823–24.]
Reference is made in the clause to Section 3(2) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, which deals with the application of criminal and civil law:
in accordance with the law in force in such part of the United Kingdom as may be


specified in the Order, of questions arising out of acts or omissions taking place in a designated area, or in any part of such an area, in connection with the exploration of the sea bed or subsoil or the exploitation of their natural resources, and for conferring jurisdiction with respect to such questions on courts in any part of the United Kingdom so specified.
The effect of this would be that Section 3 and Orders in Council would give Scottish courts criminal and civil jurisdiction over certain areas of the North Sea, termed the "Scottish areas". Likewise, English courts will presumably have jurisdiction over English areas.

Clause 9 appears to have the effect of providing that accidents or deaths in the Scottish area can be investigated by an inquiry in Scotland. In effect, it is extending Section 3 of the 1964 Act to public inquiries. The question is whether Clause 9, in addition to its apparent effect, can have a wider effect on the question of which areas of the North Sea belong to Scotland in the unlikely event—I am not making a political point but am merely stating a fact—of Scotland separating from the United Kingdom. If, for example, the International Court of Justice were to decide the question of title or sovereignty, it might well consider the question: whose law prevails? That would not be conclusive, but it would be persuasive, and would unquestionably be used. Clause 9, in conjunction with Section 3 of the 1964 Act, could prove a suitable launching pad for a strong argument about sovereignty and ownership.

Lines 22 and 23 on page 7 of the Bill refer specifically to Scotland. There appears to be no suggestion in the Bill that accidents in the English area should be considered as if they had occurred in England. What is the position regarding jurisdiction for English inquiries into fatal accidents on, for example, oil rigs or platforms in the English area? I ask because there might be considerable Scottish interest, for instance, in the people involved.

The co-ordinates of latitude and longitude in the Orders in Council which define English and Scottish areas are more an exercise in navigation than in law. I find it extremely difficult to determine what they resolve. Could the Lord Advocate give us an indication of his interpretation

of the term "Scottish waters"? In an interesting article in The Times on 1st March, Mr. Hugh Stephenson wrote:
If there were a break-up of the Union, the matter would have to be settled between the two new countries. Under the original convention, in case of dispute, the line would normally be expected to be one at right angles to the line of the coast at the point where the land boundary ends. On this basis, a Continental Shelf boundary would run much more nearly north-cast.
This may have far-reaching implications for the ownership of various oilfields. I appreciate that I should be out of order to pursue this point under the Bill, but it is an interesting matter which I should like the Lord Advocate to deal with when he replies.

The nationalist interpretation has always been that everything north of latitude 55 degrees 50 minutes is Scottish. This is based on the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968, but that Order was not intended to be used for anything as far-reaching as a determination of the ownership or sovereignty of these fields.

On a more technical and legal matter, I understand that there is no question of any repeal of the 1968 Order. In Schedule 1 to the Bill, however, a list is given of Acts which will require to be amended if the Bill becomes law, and in Schedule 2 there is a list of Acts which require to be repealed. Will the Lord Advocate confirm that the 1964 and 1968 legislation is not being amended?

I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands said. We think that the Bill is an improvement. There are certain amendments which we shall wish to argue later, but we welcome the Bill and hope that it will receive a Second Reading.

6.21 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply. I am grateful to hon. Members who have given the Bill a welcome, even if it is a qualified one. A useful debate can take place on the issues to which the qualifications mainly relate.
In reply to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), I do not want to be drawn into specific answers to the many pressing and cogent questions he asked about the international law of the sea and the Continental Shelf. My reading


of the position is that the Continental Shelf Act and the associated legislation all relate to previous international conventions and there can be no doubt that the international person who negotiated those conventions on behalf of this country was the United Kingdom. Only one sovereign Power is involved, and that is the United Kingdom. It follows from that that no question can arise of there being any implication of law arising out of the arguments to which the hon. Member referred.
In international matters regard would have to be had, as it always is, to the broad facts and to what is recognised as custom or practice by other international persons. No doubt these matters can be considered in that context, but there can be little doubt that there is only one international person involved and that is the sovereign Power of the United Kingdom.
That would rule out consideration of any detailed inference to be drawn, for example, from the direction in which a particular line is drawn or area is taken up under a statutory provision when it is clearly taken up merely to achieve a utilitarian division of labour between one jurisdiction with the United Kingdom and another jurisdiction within that same sovereign Power.
Coming to the main principles of the Bill, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) rejected mandatory inquiries as wasteful and bureaucratic. That is an issue between the two sides on which we can have a useful and constructive dialogue. Objections have been made in the course of the debate to mandatory inquiries, and the reasons why they are desirable have been touched on by several hon. Members. Those reasons amount to compelling reasons of public good. Unless one can say that there are strong reasons of public good why public inquiries into fatalities should be mandatory, one should accept that no case is made for them to be mandatory. To that extent we accept that that is the issue between us.
The Grant Committee's Report does not contain a strong, conclusive statement of the position. In Recommendation 317 the Committee takes the view, along with the majority of the witnesses, that the compulsory fatal accident inquiry serves no very useful purpose and

should be abolished. There were divided views in evidence before the Grant Committee, and it is clear from the Report that the Committee would have reflected strong submissions had they been made, for example, by the Law Society of Scotland or the STUC on the basis on which they were presented to the Government after the consultative document was issued in 1973.
There is no sinister implication to be drawn from that. It is common, after a Royal Commission or committee of inquiry has heard evidence, for Government proposals to be put forward in a consultative document, a Green Paper or a White Paper and for people who examine those proposals to see for the first time implications which they do not like and which they would have brought to the attention of the committee or Royal Commission had they been aware of them beforehand. In that light the history of events is understandable. In 1973, when the consultative document put forward the suggestion that mandatory inquiries should be dispensed with, the STUC on the one hand and the Law Society of Scotland on the other began to see difficulties which they presented in memoranda to the then Government. It is those memoranda which gave rise to the change of view of the present Government.
After carefully considering the whole issue, the Government reached the view that it would be wrong not to hold an inquiry where public disclosure of a danger leading to a fatality is an important factor and where the protection of safety, by opening the door of the public inquiry to the possibility of further proceedings by civil action or otherwise, where fault is proved is an important factor. The Government have therefore reached the view that this procedure is appropriate.
The hon. Member for Pentlands said that it was unusual for two such diverse bodies as the Law Society and the STUC to march in step. Is not the fact that they are doing so a strong measure of support for the Government?

Mr. Rifkind: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that in rejecting these recommendations the Government have had before them information or representations which were


not available to the Grant Committee? If he is, will he say who were the minority of witnesses who appeared before the Committee and recommended the continuation of mandatory inquiries, other than the STUC and the Law Society which have continued their previous position?

The Lord Advocate: All I am saying is that strong representations were received, after the Grant Committee reported and after the consultative document was circulated, from these two sources—the Law Society of Scotland and the STUC. I accept much of what? he hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) said in this regard. When it comes to the crunch, despite the disparaging noises made by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) about the members of the STUC, the members of the trade unions in Scotland who make up the STUC are experienced in this sphere and are the people who are subject to the risk of death by accident at work. The Law Society was prepared to effect a compromise, but a compromise would have proved unsatisfactory. Where both bodies are anxious to ensure that there is a universal net to catch accidents which cause death during work, we should be loth, perhaps for abstract rather than concrete reasons, to abolish the mandatory inquiry. We can discuss this matter at greater length in Committee.

Mr. Thompson: I am not clear from reading the report of the debate in another place whether the STUC and the Law Society recommended the extension of the mandatory inquiry to cover the self-employed and others.

The Lord Advocate: The answer to that is definitely "No". As I said in my opening speech, the Government have come to this matter in stages. Having decided in principle, for reasons that the hon. Member understands, that there should be a continuation of the mandatory inquiries, we then found that other legislation, particularly the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, made a distinction between industrial and non-industrial employment quite unreasonable. If one got that far, one is then dealing with fatalities at work. If they are significant and important because of

developments in industrial and non-industrial work, is it to be said that, where self-employed people or employers themselves are working with similar machinery or in a similarly dangerous situation, there should be no fatal accident inquiry? It would be illogical to exclude this small minority of cases when there are inquiries into all other fatalities at work.
As for the quantity of work and the question whether there would be an increase in the number of fatal accident inquiries, I can reassure hon. Members. The best estimate we can make is that the increase in the number of cases in any one year is likely to be about 75. I do not think I can venture at this stage to say what that might mean in terms of expenditure, but it is obvious that one can quantify the reduction in expenditure which will result from abolishing juries. That will show what the savings are. It would not then be too difficult, assuming that the 75 cases that we would have by way of increase in any one year were much the same as those in the ordinary run of inquiries—say, last year—to estimate the gain or loss involved. This has been done in the sense that the figures have been looked at and the broad probabilities considered. The view has been taken that the one is likely to balance the other.
Consideration should be given to the fact that those parts of the Bill which are non-controversial and have been welcomed on both sides of the House are likely to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of fatal accident inquiries, so that an increase of 75 cases in any one year is not likely to require the same increase in labour and trouble by officials and the court. The procedure will be more expeditious and easier to carry out.
One or two hon. Members have suggested that ordinary motor accidents or heart attacks would lead to mandatory inquiries. That is not true. A motor accident would lead to a mandatory inquiry only when it involved someone at work, and death from natural causes would not normally be regarded as an accident.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) stressed the importance of considering the schedule along with the provisions of some of the


clauses, particularly Clause 9. The Secretary of State for Energy has power, under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971, to order inquiries into deaths occurring at offshore installations. There is thus an overlap between inquiries under that Act and inquiries under the Bill, but the Department of Energy has not yet used the powers under the 1971 Act. It intends to use them only in respect of major disasters, I understand, and would normally leave an inquiry into a single death to the procedure under the Bill.
Obviously, there will be close co-operation between the procurators fiscal and the Department of Energy, the inspectors in particular, in investigating any death which may be the subject of an inquiry. But it is obvious that, when the Department of Energy decides to hold an inquiry under the 1971 Act, that will exclude an inquiry under the Bill unless the Lord Advocate otherwise decides. That is the way in which Clause 9 and that part of the schedule can be reconciled.
As for Clause 7(1)(b), it provides that the Lord Advocate
… may by rules, provide in relation to inquiries … for the representation, on such conditions as may be specified in the rules, of any person who is entitled by virtue of this Act to appear at the inquiry".
The object, therefore, is that rules may be given to achieve that representation, and the power is general. I have little doubt that if it were necessary, in order to effect some particular result, to aid representation in needy cases, that could be dealt with by suitable rules under the clause.
I have not had time to deal with all the detailed points, but I am glad that a general welcome has been given to the Bill. I hope that in Committee the short, sharp issue which has arisen in the debate between the two sides will be the subject of a profitable and constructive debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committtee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Ordered,
That notwithstanding anything in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 60 (Constitution of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 69 (Scottish Standing Committees) the Bill be considered by a Scottish Standing Committee.—[The Lord Advocate.]

FRESHWATER AND SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to New Clause 1, on which my name appears as a sponsor? I do not know how that happened, but I was not a sponsor of the clause. I am not making any great issue of that, since I am prepared to speak about the area board, but I was not a signatory. On the contrary, I was a signatory of New Clause 2. I presume that when that is called I shall be able to speak on that.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot understand how the mistake occurred, but no doubt inquiries will be made. The hon. Member should look at the selection list, from which he will see that New Clause 2 is not selected.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Further to that point of order. With regard to your provisional selection of amendments, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? All but three of the 39 amendments and new clauses tabled for consideration have been selected. Two refer to the deletion of entire clauses, but the other is New Clause 2, in the names of myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) and Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). Various concepts are embraced in that new clause which were not debated in Committee and are not covered by any of the other amendments selected. I refer to the concept of the cooperative body called the Scottish Anglers' Trust, the concept of compulsory registration of fisheries in Scotland and also the suggested power of the trust to acquire any fishing rights which are deemed to be for the public interest. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how those points should be debated?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing personal in the fact that the hon. Member is unlucky enough not to have had his new clause selected. The House has given me the obligation to select amendments on Report, and considerable time was spent this morning selecting these amendments.


Because the House has also decided, of its own free will, that I am not required to give my reasons for this selection, I can only say that I wish that I could have been more helpful to the hon. Member. Certainly I have no desire to prevent him from speaking, but the decision that I reached was that the new clause was not selected.

Mr. Buchan: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had been half hoping that, since there had been an error with my name being attached to New Clause 1, that might have influenced your decision about New Clause 2. If that is not so, however, I believe that it would be appropriate for us to ask you to have a fresh look at this as the debate is going on. The fact that this is a new clause would not alter the order of debate in this House.
In view of the fact that my hon. Friend has raised a number of new points which otherwise would not be discussed, since they are not covered in amendments which were put down during the Committee proceedings and would not be eligible for discussion on Report, because of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but are vital to the whole question and have been the kernel of debate in our previous discussion of the Report from which the Bill comes, particularly the question of the public ownership of fishing, it would be very proper for you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider your provisional selection and to give a changed decision on this before the proceedings are finished.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is not aware that my statement was as a result of further consideration, because his hon. Friend had made representations to me a little earlier when I was in the Chair and I went back and considered the matter very carefully. I am sorry that I am not able to select the new clause.

New Clause 1

AREA BOARDS

"The Secretary of State for Scotland shall within the next two years introduce a measure to set up Area Boards based on the recommendations of Command Paper No. 2691 of August 1965".—[Mr. David Steel.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With New Clause 1 it will be convenient to discuss New Clause 3 (Area Fishing Boards), Amendment No. 5, in Clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
(b) he has the consent of a duly recognised Area Fishing Board to such proposals or any modification made in terms of subsection (3) below;
and Amendment No. 18, in Clause 2, page 3, line 18, after "him", insert:
an Area Fishing Board having by virtue of such protection order a right of control over or fishing for freshwater fish or".

Mr. Steel: I must say at the outset that I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is not a genuine supporter of the clause and that his name appears only because of a clerical error, because I had hoped for his strong support, considering that he was the Minister responsible for these matters at the time of the White Paper to which my new clause refers.
Throughout the passage of the Bill I have been in some slight difficulty because my attitude to it is certainly that it is worthy of support, because it is a step in the right direction in that it is one step out of the chaos into some kind of order as regards trout fishing in Scotland. Therefore, if faced with a choice between the Bill and the present state of the law, it is better to support the Bill but it is very much second best as a piece of legislation.
The purpose of my new clause is very simply to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to give this matter further consideration over the next two years and to come forward with more comprehensive and radical proposals to lay before Parliament in due course. A fundamental flaw in the state of chaos which will exist once the Bill becomes law is that there will, sadly, be two entirely separate systems of administration on the rivers of Scotland for trout and salmon. Not only will there be separate systems of administration but, as we discussed at some length in Committee, in some areas there will be two separate systems of policing as well, with bailiffs looking after the interest of salmon and wardens looking after the interest of trout, though they


may be one and the same person. Nevertheless, if one were writing the law of Scotland from scratch one would not, with the best will in the world, as I am sure the Under-Secretary would agree, set about it in this way and write a law relating to salmon and trout separately as we have it now.
I accept that the Government are faced with legacies from the past through the way in which legislation has been built up over the years. But this does not seeem to me an adequate answer to why they have not shown a little more courage and produced a more fundamental piece of legislation. Shortage of time cannot be an excuse, because my new clause refers specifically to the Command Paper of 1965, popularly known as the Hunter Report.
Lord Hunter's Committee was appointed to consider the whole question of the law and administration of river fishing in Scotland in March 1962. The Committee deliberated for three and a half years and produced a very weighty Report in August 1965. I remember that these matters were of some topical interest in 1965 during a by-election I contested in which I put forward my views very firmly to people in the Borders who have a great interest in these matters. It seems to me extraordinary that here we are, more than 10 years, later with that White Paper virtually ignored.
This is where the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West comes in, whether he likes it or not. One of the extraordinary features of the politics of fishing is that, as each Government have come in, spokesmen have got up—I could quote from the Official Report but I shall not weary the House—on the Opposition Front Bench demanding to know when action was to be taken on the Hunter Report; and as Governments have changed, lo and behold, the ex-Ministers have got up and asked when action was to be taken of those who were themselves asking earlier when action was to be taken. And so the see-saw goes on with changes of Government. We end, rather disappointingly, with this advanced but nevertheless limited measure pertaining only to trout fishing.
I do not want to quote chunks of the Hunter Report, but it seems to me that the weakness of the present legislative

position is well summed up in paragraphs 138 and 139 of that Report:
We are convinced that separate administrations would be wasteful and would most probably make the worst of possible conflicts of interest and we therefore recommend that local bodies should be responsible for both salmon and trout fisheries. In areas where it is practised, coarse fishing should also come under the local body.
6.45 p.m.
Paragraph 139 of the Report says:
We reach the conclusion, then, that the local administrative authority should:

(1) be capable of looking objectively at fisheries for different species and at different fishing methods, and of assessing the measures required for their development and control;
(2) be sufficiently broadly based in its composition to command public confidence in its decisions, and in its representation of the fisheries interest in the face of competition from other users of water;
(3) be able through its officers to protect the fisheries in its area by enforcing the regulations, both statutory and administrative;
(4) be able to employ the technical staff needed to enable it to identify, test and apply scientific and technical advances;
(5) have some voice in the availability of waters to visitors; and
(6) have sufficient resources to undertake the foregoing functions."
I do not happen to agree with every detailed conclusion or precise recommendation of the Hunter Committee, but the basic principle is surely correct that there should be one unified administrative structure in each river area of Scotland. That is a conclusion I would like to see enshrined in legislation. If we have to accept the Bill as a second best, we shall have to do so, but it would be a very good thing if this House were to add the new clause to the Bill at this stage so that it concentrated the minds of the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State and required them to think further on this issue and to come forward within two years with more comprehensive proposals.

Mr. Buchan: There were some exchanges earlier in relation to the association of my name with this clause on the Notice Paper. Although I am in favour of the clause, it is inadequate in that it does not really set up what it would be able to do. It seems to me that in arguing the case for the establishment of such boards we should be outlining also the kind of work they will be able


to carry out, because otherwise there is no case for them.
If these area boards are established, as I hope they will be, it will be valuable if two things are recognised. The first is that the proposals of the composition of the board as outlined in the Hunter Report will no longer suffice. In many ways the Report was a reactionary document. These area boards, far from being representative of the owners' interest, should be the instruments of national policy which would carry out a laid-down set of guidelines whose main purpose should be to maximise access for the fishermen of moderate means, and, therefore, do so at moderate cost. Secondly, the boards should have the duty of taking these waters into public ownership so that they can be opened up and properly controlled. Therefore, it would be useful if these powers were administered by some kind of central body.
I think that it should be a co-operative body of anglers, possibly called the Scottish Anglers' Trust, which could do the administration—in other words, national involvement in such a trust along with a representative body of anglers, and with membership of the Scottish Anglers' Trust being open to anyone on the payment of such subscription as the trust might decide. It would be useful for the area boards to have the trust carry out the work of compiling and maintaining a register of all freshwater fisheries in Scotland.
It would be useful if all the owners of freshwater fishing rights were invited to register their rights in the trust register. In order to do this, they would first have to give conclusive proof that they had the rights of ownership. Then, it would be valuable to introduce a new concept, because one of our problems is that we are not always aware of who owns what in Scotland. We know this in connection with the land. It is also true in relation to the waters.
Therefore, we should give the owners 12 months in which to prove their case that they owned the waters for which they sought registration. If they failed to do so, the waters should pass into the hands of the community, no doubt administered by the area boards and ultimately by the Scottish Anglers' Trust.

The area boards would then have the task of administering the fishing rights.
The trust and the area boards should have further powers to extend the public ownership of the waters. They would have to prove that any such acquisition was in the public interest, and they would have to decide in consultation with the Secretary of State what compensation, if any, should be given to the previous owners. In other words, there would be guidelines and not simply holus-bolus public ownership, although I hope that that would be the direction in which the boards would move.
I think that the Secretary of State should be under compulsion to consult both the anglers' trust and the boards themselves to determine the circumstances in which fishing was made available in any protected waters in respect of certain matters. Those would cover, for example, the amount of the charges to be made. They would include the power to lay down the permitted methods of fishing or the tackle to be used, the maximum number of fish which could be caught, the permitted maximum number of roads in any area and, if there had to be a close season or closures of one kind or another, the permitted times of fishing. The boards should also decide the permitted minimum size of fish which could be taken. They should decide on the limits of the waters in which the proposed protection order would operate and, finally, any other conditions under the proposed protection order.
We would have been able to discuss all these matters more fully if New Clause 2 had been selected. Notwithstanding that the clause was not selected, it is important to put these matters on the record.
One of our problems is that, like most other Government decisions, we face what a friend of mine used to call "the Dunfermline decision". That, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is when you meet a man and ask him to tell you the way to Dunfermline and he replies "First right, second left, over the bridge—look, if I was going to Dunfermline I wouldn't start from here." That is one of the problems in so many Government decisions.
Above all, it is a tremendous problem in regard to fisheries. It is a nonsensical


concept of ownership which we allow. No sane Government starting from scratch would have allowed the present position to come about. It would have been a legislative nonsense to have introduced it into Parliament in this form. The laws relating to fisheries in Scotland go back further than the sixteenth century because of the importance of salmon.
Ideally we should ask ourselves what we are aiming towards, and the answer must be that the lochs and rivers of Scotland should belong to the people of Scotland. It is a nonsense in relation to salmon, for example, to say that there should be a thing which no one can touch and which no one can see passed from generation to generation—the so-called heritable right in relation to salmon ownership. The man does not own the river. He does not even own the banks of the river. However, on a certain stretch there is some kind of mysticism whereby the waters and the air around the waters say that this stretch belongs to Lord Lovat and any fish caught there carries a little flag bearing his heraldic crest. It is a nonsense that this heritable right should be transmitted from generation to generation at a time when we are having a difficult job to get security for tenant farmers in some parts of the country.
It is right that this should belong to the community and that the community should be able to control access and conservation. I notice that we have a landlord from the Highlands area sitting on the Opposition Benches. We welcome him to the debate. I am sure that he is here to argue for the public ownership of all the land in the Highlands of Scotland. That will be the day.
But the people who have acquired these vast estates by having power over salmon in this way enjoy another element which comes into it, and that is the high cost of salmon fishing. The right to salmon fishing is an extremely exclusive and desirable right to possess. We know the money which is paid for salmon fishing. I have in mind the place where I was brought up, near the River Helmsdale. By having that exclusiveness, people have other powers. They have powers over development and practically everything else in the area.
If we got rid of King Salmon as the symbol of the Highlands, we would crack

the power of some of the great landowners in the Highlands area. Crofters in the area of the River Helmsdale with fences and dykes about 10 ft. from the side of the bank are not permitted to fish off the land which they farm. This is the nonsense in the Highlands, and die hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) knows it. This is the kind of power that we have to deal with. Hence the need for the area boards, which will reflect not the powers of the owners but the national policy, which is to extend to the taking over of these waters into the public's hands.
When it comes to trout, an even more curious situation exists. Because of past rights of fishermen in Scotland, it was not an offence to fish for brown trout. It is for that reason that we have to bring in protection. I am in favour of making it a statutory offence. In the interests of the ordinary angler, there has to be an element of conservation.
The members of a working-class club who pay their "bob" a week must know that they can have access, that they should contribute towards that access, and that they should get protection too. There is a case for that. But there is no case for giving protection in the sense of making it an offence to fish for brown trout unless at the same time we have control of it. This should not be left merely to a faint form of access in return for protection. It should be organised and planned.
We have all seen the burns which are left alone, which could be stocked but are not. All these should be brought under proper planning. The opening up of access and conservation measures are not inhibitions of personal freedom. The idea is to crack some of the powers both of riparian owners in respect of brown trout and of this curious salmon ownership for the exclusive few in order to enhance the freedoms and liberties of the many.
7.0 p.m.
I do not accept the suggested compensation figure of £250 million. I accept that when I was Minister I said that I was urgently looking at the question, but what can one man do among so many? One might have brought forward modest measures then, but I think that the same problems exist today. I do not accept


that it would cost so much in compensation. Lord Lovat or Lord X, Y or Z has done little to ensure that salmon swims in any particular stretch of water. Having the right to fish is different from running a business. A family might have laboured for years to build up a business, but the fish are there naturally and yet for that reason alone the landowner receives £500 a week.
I should like to see salmon included in the Bill. The word "salmon" appears in the Short Title. We should tell those with fishing rights that if they want to fish for salmon they can do so. We should tell them that they can use perhaps three rods for the rest of their lives for nothing but that they will not decide who is going to be permitted to use the others. That will be decided by the community. It would be a fair compensation. Whole stretches of the Highlands, my country, have been sold off and taken into private ownership. We should allow those people to continue to fish, but they should not expect others to pay them £500 a week for the same privilege.
It might be suggested that compensattion should be based on 20 years' capitalisation, as happened when industries were taken into public ownership, but that was based on skill and labour. We could reduce it to two years' capitalisation, based on the average value of the salmon caught in the previous 10 years.
In supporting New Clause 1, we want to see the creation of area boards under a national policy. We want to see local democratic control so that miners and car workers can have their share of access.
Scientists would say that the best way to ensure the proper protection and planning of river stocks is by control of the entire river system. That can happen only if we establish area boards to administer and plan and if the people themselves own the waters. The new clause is a modest proposal towards the public ownership of inland waters, and the Minister should recognise that that is our aim.
The Scottish National Party, in its New Clause 3, ignores any extension of the powers of the ordinary people. That new clause deals with many organisational matters but it has nothing to say

about the real power involved. We do not want vague generalisations about constitutional change. We want real power in the hands of the ordinary people. That is why I would reject New Clause 3 as being totally inadequate. It fails the people of Scotland. I support the introduction of area boards because that is a start towards the advance that I want to see.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) described New Clause 3 in the way that he did. If the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) does not press New Clause 1, I hope to have the opportunity of pressing New Clause 3. If he presses New Clause 1 my hon. Friends and I, to save time, will accept that as a vote on the principle of setting up area boards.
The Bill is intended to secure increased access to waters for members of the public, but in the Committee there were fears that the Bill will not do that. Angling clubs, and workers in my area who enjoy angling, fear that their rights of access will be restrained or limited by the Bill. If the rights of access are not limited it is feared that costs will rise, eventually become prohibitive and that anglers will be excluded eventually from the waters in which they are accustomed to fish. New Clause 3 provides for local control. It attempts to allay the fears expressed by anglers and to open up waters for development and for use by the public.
The area boards are the first priority in the new clause. It is significant that the concept of area boards has been accepted. There is a good reason for that because the proposal provides for the decentralisation of the administration, development, control and use of freshwater fisheries in Scotland. It means that those who know local conditions will have the right to deal with protection orders, to consider their effect and, if they feel the rights of local people are not being properly considered, to veto protection orders suggested to the Secretary of State. The significance of the proposed structure is that the area fishing boards will have a majority of local anglers amongst their membership. That will give the angling public control over the sport which they enjoy. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West takes exception to the terms in the clause.
I had intended to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) because his formula for the membership of the boards seemed commendable. He isolated the various forms of representation on the boards. He said that angling clubs should be represented. Although angling is an individual sport many people who are members of angling clubs travel together on buses to save transport costs. The sport is often organised on a group basis, particularly in areas close to industrial centres.
The hon. Member also suggested that local authorities should be members of the boards. That is fair. There was a debate on that in Committee, and it seems sensible that local authorities with leisure and recreation functions should be involved in matters concerning fishing areas.

Mr. David Steel: There is a fundamental difference between the hon. Member's new clause and my new clause. His new clause does not deal with salmon. That was one of the criticisms made in the Hunter Report. Could the hon. Gentleman touch on that?

Mr. Wilson: Only to the extent that it was decided, when considering this—and in consultation with angling interests—that it would be better to get the area boards set up for a start with power to take care of the freshwater fisheries, excluding salmon. Then, no doubt, at a later date their operations could extend into the salmon fishing, but it was felt that salmon formed such a special area of concern that the area boards would have sufficient on their hands to deal with the trout fishing, which is the main interest of the anglers. I know that the hon. Gentleman has an exceptionally good salmon river flowing through his constituency, but, nevertheless, for most of the country, the fishing which is most enjoyed is trout fishing. It is for those reasons that I have concentrated on that type of fishing.
I was saying that it seemed to me perfectly reasonable that local authorities should be involved in these boards, and that it may be in order, to save costs, for some of them to offer services in arranging for the hire of halls for the quarterly meetings, which would be the

way in which the representation side of a board's work would be carried out, although, obviously, the committees elected from the board might have specialist functions. There is the calling of meetings and there are certain other functions, which might be partly connected with tourism or recreation, which could also be handled by them. This would enable the boards to get off the ground in an easier manner than would otherwise be the case if they were forced to take over tremendous responsibilities right from the start.
Looking at the proposals in Clause 1 we see that it is intended anyway that the fishing provision will be changed gradually as and when protection orders are made and as and when the existing law is altered.
One of the changes I have suggested in the representation relates to the position of the Scottish Sports Council, a body incorporated by Royal Charter, and whose duty is to encourage and sponsor sport in Scotland. It seemed to me that, since angling is a very important recreation in our country, the Scottish Sports Council should be responsible for the recognition of angling clubs and should also be represented on the area fishing boards, so that there would be a degree of co-ordination and co-operation through the medium of that body. I think the machinery set up under the Scottish Sports Council would enable this to be done in an easier way than would perhaps be the case if one wanted to go through, say, a Scottish anglers' trust which would have to be established.
If it were felt, after the experience of area fishing boards, that there could be a case for a central angling association which would have a greater rôle or a specialist rôle in development or improvement of freshwater fisheries in Scotland, I might not be against it, but it would be necessary to make out a case in favour of it, but where the Scottish Sports Council exists I think that is the best way in which one could make a start.
The last category of membership which struck me at the time as being most generous—knowing the views of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire—is the representation of riparian owners on the boards, but having read some of the proceedings of the Committee, I take it


that they are there for the purpose of having an interest in the control of land access as well as their interests in the fishing rights. They will have an interest in the way in which sheep or cattle might be affected by access which anglers may have to their properties, and, indeed, an interest in protecting certain crops which might be growing very close to the rivers.
Indeed, if we carry it further and study another Bill which we are due to consider later this evening, it may well be that ultimately crofters may be owner-occupiers with established rights to fishing as well. Even if they do not establish rights to fishing, may be riparian owners in a certain sense could find that their own ground could be invaded by anglers, and thus a case is quite clearly made for the representation of riparian owners on the boards.
7.15 p.m.
As to what the boards can do, I have specified in New Clause 3 that the purpose of the boards will be to secure
the opening up of freshwater fisheries to public use".
I should have thought that might well have taken care of the point raised by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West concerning the development and improvement of fisheries.
Here I come to a very important part which is not incorporated in the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. That is the consideration of proposals for protection orders made under an earlier clause of the Bill.

Mr. Buchan: I do not see why it should take care of the point I raised. People have public use, if they are prepared to pay for it, in some of the best salmon rivers in the Highlands. It is like the freedom to go to the Ritz for one's dinner every day. It does not mean much unless one has another form of control on opening up access.

Mr. Wilson: I do not really take the hon. Gentleman's point. If freshwater fisheries are developed for use, it will be one of the purposes of the area fishing boards to make sure that there is reasonable access at reasonable cost to freshwater fisheries.
My point, before the hon. Gentleman's intervention, was that a prime purpose of New Clause 3, and also of Amendment 5, which is associated with it, is to give to the area boards which I have envisaged the power to object to the protection orders which may have come from the landlords or the owners of the streams in question. If the board members find that the protection orders which have emerged from the landed interests do not meet with the interests of the local fishing community they will have the opportunity of saying "No" to such orders, with the effect that these orders would then presumably be taken back, and the landed interests might have to come back with amended conditions, which, again, could be subject to review by the fishing board.
I think that is a very real protection which, as far as I am aware from my own angling community, would be welcomed by them, because one of the fears they have under the present scheme, even allowing for the Government amendments which will be dealt with later, is that they do not have a proper protection against the protection orders which could be sponsored.
Since the boards would be operating at local area level, they would have a very good knowledge of local conditions and of the qualities of the various waters which might be affected by protection orders. It is certainly right that there should be this control because, as said earlier, freshwater fishermen believe, and are right to believe, that the fishing resources of Scotland belong to them.
The law or practice concerning trout has been rather strange in the past. Although the right of access to waters has always been in doubt, and the fish themselves have been what lawyers term res nullius—belonging to no one—because they are wild creatures, nevertheless, because of the nature of the legal process, there was very little that the landed proprietors could do to get fishermen out. We have reached a stage where it is agreed that, provided there axe suitable supports and protections given to local fishing interests, much more emphasis should be placed upon conservation and development of waters to improve the level of fishing. My local fishermen do not think this Bill will do that.

If New Clause 3 is accepted by the House I think that the angling community will be much happier with the situation than would be the case otherwise, even if the Government amendments go forward, because there are very real fears indeed that the rights of the public will be trimmed away and that the rights of access to the freshwater fisheries of Scotland will be reduced. New Clause 3 would give to angling clubs, because they would form the majority on the board, the right to decide whether the waters in the area should be let under the existing law or practice or go forward with the protected status envisaged in the Bill. I ask the House to accept New Clause 3.

Mr. Canavan: In principle, I agree with the idea of area fishing boards. I note that the new clauses and amendments under discussion refer to area boards of one type or another. Unfortunately, they are all diluted versions of the area boards which I proposed in Committee and have again proposed on Report in a new clause which has not been called.
The Scottish National Party intrigues me. Its main contribution to the Bill so far consists of complaining about not being represented on the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill. The SNP has created a great public hue and cry, saying how unfairly it was treated by the rules of the House, and so on. I understand that the rules were applied, and unfortunately the SNP was not represented in Committee.
I should have thought that, after all the moaning and groaning about non-representation on the Committee, the SNP, now that the Bill is on the Floor of the House on Report, would have taken full advantage of the opportunity to table some good, strong new clauses and amendments. Looking at the new clauses and amendments tabled by the SNP, I suggest that they would make very little, if any, difference to this very bad Bill.
For example, new Clause 3 provides:
Each Area Board shall within its prescribed area have as its object the opening up of freshwater fisheries to public use".
That is a laudable aim which most, if not all, hon. Members would like to see achieved. But how can we open up

something to public use unless we have some control over it? How can we have control unless there is some element of ownership? The SNP's aim in tabling the new clause may be honourable and praiseworthy, but I cannot for the life of me see how the wording, in the unlikely event of the new clause being accepted, would radically change the Bill to increase the amount of public access. The new clause, as it stands, is quite impotent. It is a cosmetic proposal. We cannot have public control over anything—fishing rights or anything else—without some form of community ownership.
I know that members of various Opposition parties take a dogmatic and bigoted stance against any form of community ownership. I should be the first to admit that some forms of community ownership in the past have left a lot to be desired in industry and elsewhere. We are still searching for the best means of community ownership in various spheres. But to take a simple subject like fishing and to say that some form of common ownership would present or create administrative and management difficulties is to misunderstand the situation. Frankly, I do not see how we can have any national co-ordinated policy on the administration of freshwater fishing rights without some form of public ownership.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), taking a phrase from Scots law, said that fish were res nullius—nobody's fish. I should like to coin a new phrase. I suggest that fish are res populi—they belong to the people. The reason why Labour candidates were elected at the General Election was to try to restore the rights of the people, not to stick up for the rights of private fisheries and small exclusive angling fraternities, syndicates, and so on.
The only convincing argument against my proposal in Committee was that £250 million—I do not know whether that figure was plucked out of the air or came from a civil servant—would be required to compensate all the landowners and others who owned fishing rights in Scotland. I disputed that figure at the time. I asked for its source. I was not told where the figure came from. Afterwards I took the trouble to table some Questions. The answers were, to say the least, non-informative. I was told that the


Secretary of State could not estimate the market or any other value for fishing rights within Scotland. The scare figure of £250 million was put forward in Committee to persuade hon. Members not to vote for my proposal. That was an unfair tactic. I hope that hon. Members will bear that point in mind.

Mr. David Steel: As the hon. Gentleman has researched the matter carefully, will he tell us what the real figure is?

Mr. Canavan: I have tried my best to find out what the real figure is. Neither the Secretary of State, St. Andrews House, the Scottish Landowners' Federation, nor anybody else appears to be willing to tell me. They certainly do not seem to know.
In Committee I said that we should not be speaking in terms of the market value of fishing rights for the purposes of compensation. I do not think that people should be compensated for some right, imaginary or otherwise, which was passed on to them by their ancestors. I believe that people who have spent money on the conservation and stocking of fish should be fairly compensated. However, I do not see why people who have inherited fishing rights through family lineage should be compensated. Perhaps we should give them a few free rods for themselves and their families in lieu of monetary compensation. If the principle of public ownership were accepted, it would be possible in time to work out some gradual extension rather than to think in terms of a huge, overestimated sum of £250 million of public expenditure at this time.
I should now like to refer to membership of the boards. The Liberal Party's proposal in New Clause 1 is for area boards based on the Hunter recommendations. The Hunter Report, in paragraph 143, states:
The composition of the Area Board is a matter of importance, because a well-balanced, well-informed and responsible body will be needed to provide fair and efficient administration. Representatives of salmon and trout fisheries should between them have a majority, but additional members should be appointed to ensure that other interests concerned in the affairs of the rivers and lochs of the Area will not be overlooked and that independent views are expressed.
When I first read that paragraph, I wondered who was meant by

Representatives of salmon and trout fisheries.
It is clear from subsequent paragraphs that salmon fisheries representatives are meant to be representatives of the salmon fisheries proprietors. It is only when we come to the trout fisheries that we find any mention of trout fishermen or anglers being represented.
Frankly, I do not find that part of the Hunter Report acceptable. If we are to get a fair deal for Scottish anglers, the anglers themselves must be in a majority on the area boards or the Scottish Anglers' Trust which I previously suggested. I dismiss the Liberal proposal with that criticism.
The SNP's New Clause 3 refers to a majority——
provided that angling club representatives are elected by the angling clubs and form a majority of members of each Board.
That is fair enough. To that extent it is preferable to the Liberal Party's proposal.
7.30 p.m.
However, I am not sure why they have brought in the Scottish Sports Council. I am not at all sure that the Scottish Sports Council would be the best type of body to deal in any way with the administration of angling. Indeed, we can look at its record in other areas. I have in my possession an article from the Daily Record of 16th February. It is by John Calder who said:
I see that the Scottish Sports Council is generously offering capital grants totalling more than £100,000 to 26 sports clubs in various parts of the country.
He went on:
Thornhill Golf Club in Dumfriesshire, a private club founded in 1892, present membership 170, has been awarded £12,450 to extend the course from nine to 18 holes on land to be leased from the Buccleuch Estates".
He added:
The Lochmaben Club, also in Dumfriesshire membership 248, is to get £10,250 to buy the land on which its 9-hole course is laid.
Lest we think that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) is getting some special treatment for his constituency through his contact with the Scottish Sports Council the article goes on:
Turriff Golf Club, in the Grampian Region, collects £2,553 to provide a water supply to all 18 holes. It has some 175 members. And the Orkney Golf Club in Kirkwall, 18 holes and more than 100 members, will gracefully acknowledge £650 to convert a store into additional locker accommodation. That makes


nearly £26,000—more than a quarter of the total hand outs—to be disbursed among four private golf clubs. If they really looked hard enough I'm sure the Scottish Sports Council could find more deserving beneficiaries of the taxpayers' money in some of the under-privileged areas of Glasgow and Edinburgh.
I tend to agree with Mr. Calder. If that is the way the Sports Council is giving out the money it has at present, I wonder what it would do if it had any say in the administration of these area fishing boards.
The last thing we want is public money being used to develop exclusive clubs for golf, angling, or any other sporting activities or, indeed, any activity at all. I am sure that even my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that the aim of the Bill—whether it is achieved is another matter—is to extend public access and to make Scotland's fishing available as much as possible to as many people as possible. We want it made available not only to people who happen to live in an area of Scotland which is naturally well endowed with good fishing, but to people who are not in that fortunate position—for example, people who work very hard in the industrial central belt of Scotland and who like to go to other areas and do a bit of fishing at weekends.
My own constituency is reasonably well endowed with good fishing. It embraces part of Loch Lomond, Loch Coulter, Loch Carron and various reservoirs and even part of the Trossachs. Certainly fishing is within easy travelling distance. However, many of my constituents like to go fishing in other areas such as the Borders and the Highlands. They go on week-end expeditions which the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) does not like very much. Nevertheless as Socialists my hon. Friends and I are anxious that the good things in Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles should be extended to all Scottish people and visitors and not only to the locals.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am afraid that I must rise to this rather wet fly. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that all the golf courses he mentioned in Dumfriesshire are open to the general public on payment for a daily ticket. There is no problem of access. Moreover, to be fair to the Sports Council the hon. Gentleman might have men-

tioned the large sum of money it gives to the Nithsdale Angling Club to purchase a stretch of the river Nith.

Mr. Canavan: I was quoting from an article in the Daily Record which referred to the private golf clubs. I doubt that if I went to play a game of golf tomorrow at the Thornhill Golf Club or to the Lochmaben Club I should be welcomed with open arms and asked to pay exactly the same price as the local members.

Mr. Monro: If the hon. Gentleman comes to my constituency, he will be welcomed.

Mr. Canavan: I may take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit his constituency.
There is a real problem when it comes to fishing and this is where the area boards are not enough. Anglers want to travel from one area to another. The danger of having just area boards is that they may become too parochially minded, that they may want to be exclusive and cater more for the people within the area rather than thinking of Scottish people from other areas or of tourists from other parts of the United Kingdom and abroad.
I believe that the failure of both proposals is that neither has suggested a national co-ordinating body, whether it be called a Scottish Anglers' Trust or whatever, which would lead to far greater co-ordination between the different areas, whether the areas are based on the local authority regions or on, for example, the areas in the Hunter Report. No doubt at times there would be a clash of interests between the people in the various areas.
I suspect that people from the industrial areas would be at a disadvantage because they might not have as many good fisheries to bargain with compared with the people in the Borders and the Highlands. Therefore, the fairest way would be to have a national co-ordinating body, such as a Scottish Anglers' Trust, operating through some form of devolution or through the area boards. I believe that this would ensure a far greater degree of access and a far better deal for all Scotland's anglers, people from elsewhere in the United Kingdom and visiting tourists.

Sir John Gilmour: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said about the need to coordinate salmon and trout fishing. However, having taken part in the debate on Second Reading and in the Standing Committee, I believe that our proposals in New Clause 4 might be more acceptable in present circumstances.
Although I appreciate that the White Paper, which was published in, I think, 1971, by the former Conservative Government, mentions the area boards, I do not believe that it will be practicable to set them up. Therefore, I hope that the House will be more concerned to look at our New Clause 4 than at New Clause 1.

Mr. David Steel: New Clause 4, which stands in the hon. Gentleman's name, refers to
such time as Area Fishery Boards are set up",
so surely he must support the principle.

Sir J. Gilmour: We must face the practicalities of what will be made legislation. If we want protection orders let us do whatever is practicable to get on with them in the shortest possible time.
I do not think that it is practical to take New Clause 3, which has been moved by the Scottish National Party. I am certain that if they study the Hunter Report hon. Members will find that it is essential that the fishing board areas be linked with the estuaries of rivers rather than allocated on a local authority basis. I am sure that we must co-ordinate salmon and trout fishing because if one tried to operate them too separately, one would damage the interests of both. For that reason I do not think it a practical proposition to support either of these proposals, although the basic idea behind New Clause 1 may in the long run be a proposition that we shall come to adopt.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): We have had an interesting and general debate on New Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4, the discussion on two of them being official. The thing which impressed me most was that, despite what people outside say about this House being remote from public opinion and out of touch with the grass roots, the contributions from all sides of the House have reflected the various opinions of

anglers to such an extent that we are all completely divided. No one Member agrees entirely or in detail with any other, yet we are all not that far apart.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) took a great interest in this matter and was involved in it. I have come to the conclusion that the only thing more dangerous than a poacher turned gamekeeper is a gamekeeper who goes back to poaching. My hon. Friend at least recognised when he was dealing with these matters not only the complexity of the law and the arguments about the cost of acquisition, particularly of salmon, but the great difficulty over the differences of opinion among anglers themselves. That factor has certainly been impressed upon me over the last few weeks. I believe that we now have it about right, and I therefore suggest to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that he might be willing not to press his new clause.
Perhaps I may remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said when I announced our intention of putting forward proposals for trout. I said in September 1974:
Ultimately there must be, as recommended by the Committee, a system of area boards covering all Scotland's rivers representing all those concerned with the development and enjoyment of those resources, with powers and sufficient financial backing to achieve their aim".
Everyone recognises that in the long term there is much to be said for that conception, and when we get down to doing it through legislation there will not be much between us. I hope that my sympathetic attitude, which does not involve giving a specific commitment, will encourage the hon. Member not to press his new clause.
I understood that in one way or another the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) intends to press New Clause 3 and, if necessary, to divide the House if the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles withdraws his new clause. This is a reasonable time to create a democratic structure in the interests of all anglers, and the hon. Member is not entitled to force a Division on the basis of his proposals. The main objections coming from outside have been that we are doing something about protection. In his new clause the hon. Member admits that in certain circumstances, and provided that there is administrative


machinery on a democratic basis, there should be protection. I guess that, if the hon. Member went to explain to anglers who are criticising the Government's proposals that he was in favour of making fishing for trout an offence where a protection order had been granted, he would not get much of a welcome.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I know the club which the Minister has in mind, and I sympathise with him, but there is a demand for democratic control and the worry is that the protection orders which will be sought will be to the detriment of the angling community. There are different threads of opinion on that. Will the Minister indicate the Government's thinking on the time scale for introducing area boards?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Brown: I can give no specific commitment about the timing. I say only that almost everybody is committed to the general principle when time is available to implement it.
Perhaps I should stress to the hon. Member that I am talking not about one club but about a general volume of representations made to me, particularly from the Dundee area, that there is no merit in protection. I am happy to have the assurance from the SNP that it is in favour of protection in certain circumstances and provided that the machinery is democratic. I am happy that it favours the basic concept of protection and of making poaching an offence, because that is the main burden of the hon. Member's new clause. There seems to be general support for the idea of a democratic body which is mainly representative of anglers. There is, therefore, so little dividing us that I hope that the two hon. Members will be willing not to press their new clauses.

Mr. David Steel: This has been an interesting debate, and we have had an interesting view from the official Opposition. I was brought up to draw a clear distinction between a Conservative and a progressive Conservative. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is a progressive Conservative. The strict definition of a Conservative is someone who believes that nothing should be changed for the better. A progressive Conservative believes that it should be changed, but not now. The hon. Member

for Fife, East well fitted into that description in the short intervention that he made.
My new clause has many advantages. It does not commit the Government to the precise composition of area boards suggested in the Hunter Report. What I seek in the clause is the acceptance of the principle of area boards as specified in the Hunter Report to administer trout and salmon fishing. It is for the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for the House to consider when we get down to considering the detailed composition of the boards.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Member's clause clearly says that the proposed area boards would be
based on the recommendations of Command Paper No. 2691 of August 1965

Mr. Steel: It may be that we are dealing with semantics here. There is, I believe, a difference between asking someone to produce proposals based on recommendations and actually translating the recommendations into law. I say only that the principle should be established and that the details should be worked out by the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) seemed to say that I and my constituents objected to people coming into the area to fish. Not at all. If they are coming in and paying their subscriptions, be they daily or annual, they will be welcome. The only objections that we have are to people exercising their freedom, as they do due to the lack of any law at present, to fish without making any contribution to the local clubs.
The majority of the members of an angling club in my constituency, of which I am a member although I shall not name it because I am not absolutely certain, are people outwith the Borders area. Those with a genuine interest in the fishing industry, from whatever part of Scotland they come, participate in a democratic way by promoting the interest of fishing.
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire must recognise that his constituency has many advantages over mine. In the Borders we do not enjoy many of the social facilities that the more urban areas of Scotland enjoy. One of our assets is the valuable and excellent trout and


salmon fishing. By and large, if area boards are established it is natural that they should reflect that local interest. There is nothing unfair or selfish about that.
I am concerned with the principle of area boards to govern both salmon and trout fishing. Even the Under-Secretary of State appears to become a progressive Conservative under my definition, because he says that in time this must come about. In looking at the history of the matter one is entitled to be slightly cynical. It a Committee has sat for three and a halt years and comes up with this recommendation, and then 10 years pass under successive Governments and still no area boards are set up, it is a little difficult

for the Minister to appeal to us to accept good will and the assurance that at some time in the future it may come about. If we do not write something into the Bill now, the Bill will be passed—it is a step in the right direction—and we shall hear no more about the matter. It will be an end of the matter for a good many years to come.

It is for that reason that I shall press my new clause, which has had the support of many hon. Members, and give the House a chance to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to produce more radical proposals within the reasonably near future.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 18, Noes 135.

Divison No. 76.]
AYES
[7.53 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Penhaligon, David
Watt, Hamish


Beith, A. J.
Raid, George
Welsh, Andrew


Crawford, Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Sillars, James



Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freud, Clement
Thompson, George
Mr. David Steel and


Lambie, David
Wainwright, Richard (Coins V)
Mr. Douglas Henderson.


MacCormick, Iain






NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Gould, Bryan
Maynerd, Miss Joan


Atkinson, Norman
Graham, Ted
Millan, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Moyle, Roland


Boardman, H.
Hardy, Peter
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stanley


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Park, George


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Parry, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchanan, Richard
Hooley, Frank
Phipps, Dr Colin


Campbell, Ian
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, J. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rose, Paul B.


Cartwright, John
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Darttord)
Rowlands, Ted


Cohen, Stanley
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Conlan, Bernard
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silverman, Julius


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Skinner, Dennis


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Small, William


Cryer, Bob
Judd, Frank
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kaufman, Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell
Spriggs, Leslie


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lee, John
Stoddart, David


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton and Slough)
Stott, Roger


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dempsey, James
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dunn, James A.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tinn, James


Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Weetch, Ken


Forrester, John
Marquand, David
Wellbeloved, James


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, James (Pollock)


Gilbert, Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Whitlock, William




Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Woodall, Alec
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Wool, Robert
Mr. James Hamilton and


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Young, David (Bolton E)
Mr. J. D. Dormand.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

SCOTTISH SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

'(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee to be called the Scottish Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Advisory Committee for the purpose of advising the Secretary of State on the general co-ordination of salmon and brown trout fisheries management in Scotland, especially in those areas where protection orders are established, until such time as Area Fishery Boards are set up.
(2) The Scottish Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Advisory Committee shall consist of such number of persons as the Secretary of State may from time to time decide, being persons appointed after consultation with bodies representative of salmon fisheries, brown trout fisheries and any other interests which in the opinion of the Secretary of State should be represented'.—[Sir John Gilmour.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpem): With this we are to discuss Amendment No. 31, in Schedule 1, page 7, line 6, after 'order', insert:
'he shall consult the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Advisory Committee and'.

Sir J. Gilmour: As we have had a considerable discussion on whatever bodies ought to be used to co-ordinate the interests of fishing, for both salmon and trout, during the debate on the previous new clause, I need not say a great deal about this proposal. I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that our proposition speaks for itself.

Mr. Buchan: I hesitate to raise a point of order and to disturb a speaker, but I wonder whether a confusion on my part could be cleared up, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that two new clauses were about to be voted upon, New Clauses Nos. 1 and 3. Was New Clause 3 not moved?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: New Clause 3 was not moved or put to a Division.

Sir J. Gilmour: We suggest that the new committee should be called the Scottish Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Advisory Committee and it should operate

until such time as the area fishery boards may be set up. In the second paragraph of the new clause we state that the committee
shall consist of such number of persons as the Secretary of State may from time to time decide.
We have left this matter open, but clearly this committee would include a representative of owners. "Owners" would also include local authorities, in many cases because local authorities, by virtue of their ownership of reservoirs and other waters, are important owners of fisheries and can play a big part in their development. We also wish to have clubs represented and the tourist industry represented so that visistors could be catered for. Fisheries, as individuals, could also be represented on this committee.
The fact that the Government have tabled Amendment No. 4 to Clause 1, saying that they feel that there should be consultation with people wishing to fish for freshwater fish in inland waters in Scotland, shows that the spirit of our new clause is a feature that the Government have very much in mind.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Again I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's constructive approach. Perhaps I should apologise to him and to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for not having had adequate consultation about what we are proposing, which is basically on the same lines as the new clauses—in other words, in the short term, a general recognition that there is a need for some advisory body to consult and the differences of opinion among anglers themselves and their various associations. Therefore, all that divides us here is what would follow from the new clause. It is that it would be a statutory obligation and a statutory body as compared with what we are proposing in Amendment No. 4, to which we shall come later, which is an advisory body. It may be a subtle distinction not of great meaning to the public.
However, perhaps I can save time by giving the hon. Gentleman this assurance now. If we are disposed to accept the idea of an advisory committee—and perhaps we could spend a moment or two


on that when we reach Amendment No. 4—I think that we shall be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman about what we have in mind. It would include representation from the various bodies that have interests in angling, as well as anglers, the tourist bodies, the Sports Council and local authorities. As the hon. Gentleman suggested in the previous debate, the wider one makes it, the more difficult it becomes to ensure that there is a fair representation of all those who have an interest. If the hon. Gentleman responds in the constructive way in which he moved the new clause, perhaps he will see fit to withdraw it.

Mr. Monro: The Under-Secretary is being so reasonable that it is very hard to be as rude as I intended to be. There is no doubt that there has been monumental mismanagement of the Bill over the past few weeks. Clause 1 is so much like a jigsaw puzzle that it is almost impossible to fathom exactly what the Government mean. We have tabled New Clause 4 in order to bring some order out of the chaos in which the Government have got the Bill. It is a Bill which, they will appreciate, but for the support of the Liberal Party and my hon. Friends, would have gone down the river, sunk and hopelessly lost, on the second day of the Committee stage.
I appreciate that Amendment No. 4 has a bearing on the new Clause, but there is a very subtle and important distinction. The Government's point is that we are concerned with freshwater fish, and the Under-Secretary knows that under Section 24(1) of the 1955 Act that does not include salmon. Therefore, he is setting up a body of advisers or representatives of opinion interested solely in trout fishing. This is most important in relation to what we are trying to do in New Clause 4, which is to bring together the skill and knowledge of the fishery boards that deal solely with salmon fishing and co-ordinate their knowledge with those who are skilled in the management of trout fishing through an advisory committee. A knowledge of trout fishing is comparatively hard to come by. Maybe the hon. Gentleman, from Faskally, Pitlochry or elsewhere, has a source of first-class information about trout fisheries and their management, but we feel that if he

is to have advice, it must include salmon fishing knowledge.
It is not possible to manage a river for one type of fish. River management must cover all the fish in it. Therefore, we must include salmon fishing if we are to look after the spawning beds and upper stretches of a salmon river. We cannot have a host of fishermen flogging the water for trout while salmon are up the river for spawning. Co-ordination of fishing interests is important.
I do not think that Amendment No. 4, unless the Minister has much more information to give us, will meet the wishes of those who have a responsibility for much larger stretches of water, especially those including salmon fishing. The Minister must consider this matter seriously. According to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, four additional officials and one technical adviser will be appointed. How are those five people—presumably they will be based in Edinburgh—to advise all those who are likely to seek advice about protection orders? The Minister will have to establish a much larger committee of experts who know a great deal about the management of rivers. It will be necessary to set up such a committee to give practical and speedy advice when required, and especially in the first few years of this measure's operation.
Like the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), I want eventually to see river boards set up as under our White Paper, which made similar recommendations to those of the Hunter Committee. The Hunter Committee recommended 13 boards, and we recommended 14.
The Bill is becoming less and less involved with salmon fishing—references to salmon are removed by later amendments—but it would be inappropriate to expect the Government tonight to give way on river boards, which must to a large extent cover salmon fishing. The Government have got themselves into an unholy mess. I believe that expert advice is needed more than anything, whether on drafting, policy, or fishing committees.
It is to that end—namely, to give the Government the expert advice that is so singularly lacking—that we suggest that the Government set up a salmon and freshwater advisory committee. Such a


body would be able to offer expertise. It would have some practical knowledge, which at present is not available. That lack of knowledge will lead to a great deal of unhappiness and chaos.
That will be the result before we get anything out of the Bill, which is basically intended to give more trout fishing to those interested in fishing in Scotland. At the moment we are moving further away from that objective hour by hour. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the new clause gives him a tremendous chance to rescue the Bill from its present shambles.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 5

REGISTER RELATING TO FRESHWATER FISHING

"On making a protection order the Secretary of State shall make up a register of all owners of land to which pertains a right to fish for freshwater fish in any inland area to which the protection order applies, and of any occupier of such right, who did not apply in writing to the Secretary of State, in relation to the improvement of, or the giving of access to, fishings; and may specify for such fishings as so registered the circumstances in which fishing is made available in respect of the matters listed in section 1(4) of this Act.".—[Mr. David Steel.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause requires the Secretary of State to make up a register of all the persons who occupy the right to fish within a protection area, and to define the terms and conditions under which fishing within the areas in which the owners have not co-operated shall be made open to the public.

This is the third time that I have sought an accommodation with the Government on this issue. I am in a charitable mood tonight and I hope that I shall be able to withdraw the clause, provided that the Under-Secretary of State is able to give us some indication of the meetings which he has had since Committee. I hope to be able to withdraw provided that the hon. Gentleman is able to give us some indication of the course he intends to take.

In my view, the Bill suffers seriously—this is on the basis of accepting the

principle of protection orders—from a fundamental gap. In a given area in which a protection order is granted by the Government, there may well be a stretch of river where the owners have not co-operated in giving the public access. That is how the Bill stands, and it is wrong. That is not merely my personal opinion. It is a view that is held strongly by all the angling clubs in my constituency, which have asked me to press this matter once again. The new clause differs in some respects from the amendments that I moved in Committee, but it has the same effect.

I assume that the Under-Secretary of State has had discussions with the Scottish Anglers' Association since Committee. I should be surprised if it had not pressed this point upon him. Perhaps he will enlighten us. Perhaps he will tell us whether this is only a peculiar Borders concern. I should find that difficult to believe, because this issue applies everywhere in Scotland.

I notice that in the second half of Government Amendment No. 14 there is a tentative step to deal with the proprietors of fishing rights who do not cooperate in the framing of protection orders. I do not think that the amendment goes anywhere near far enough. It may be that the Minister will be able to tell us something about that.

Unless the clause or something like it is carried, three bad effects will flow from leaving the Bill as it stands. First, in making a protection order we shall be conferring a direct financial benefit in return for no obligation. I dwelt at length on this matter in Committee, and I shall not rehearse my arguments in full.

It was interesting that in Committee the Under-Secretary more or less conceded the point I was making. He said:
I confess immediately that on the face of it there seems to be an inherent injustice in giving protection to all owners without exception. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) makes the point quite clearly and properly that we are by this legislation conferring, as some people would have it, protection and benefits on people who are under no obligation to improve, or even to make available, the fishing rights which they own either to angling clubs or to members of the public. I accept that.

He then said:
It is perhaps not so much a weakness as one of the inevitable things that flow from


not requiring, as one of the hon. Gentlemen s amendments does, all owners to be part of a scheme."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 5th January 1976; c. 31.]

It is a weakness of the Bill that its provisions do not require owners to be part of the scheme. We are conferring a direct benefit on a private owner or individual in return for no obligation. It is an extraordinary thing to do, and it is even more extraordinary for a Labour Government.

A further benefit is conferred upon these people by the rest of the community as a result of these provisions. I am referring to what I hope will happen after protection orders are made—namely, that management and restocking of rivers will take place on a more comprehensive scale. Indeed, this is one of the purposes of the exercise. If that happens within a protection area, the clubs and the private owners involved in the stocking of rivers will be adding to the ownership and benefits of the individual who takes no part in that protection procedure. That individual will receive a great benefit as a result of the hard work of other people and their financial contributions.

Most of the financing of the restocking of rivers will come from people who are interested in fishing. Fish do not remain in one area of a river but swim down to the areas which riparian owners in syndicates let out to fishermen, and those owners will receive great benefit from such operations. There is nothing anybody can do about that situation.

A further defect lies in the sheer administrative task related to the warders operating in a river area. Obviously there will be an administrative gap in areas to which protection orders apply and where no access is allowed. That will cause confusion for the public and will make policing difficult.

In Committee the Minister said that the Secretary of State would judge whether access within a given area was sufficient—in other words, if the Government adjudged the access to be insufficient, they would make an order. But that surely defeats the objective of the Bill. What happens where the great majority of owners and angling clubs in a given area are keen to use the provisions of the Bill and wish to have a protection

order? We must consider the financial benefit conferred and also, alternatively, the right of veto on the part of an obstinate private owner.

I am sorry if the Minister feels that I am being over-persistent, but I feel very strongly about this matter. The Government's present attitude appears to make no sense either economically or socially. I hope that the Minister will undertake to have the matter examined in the other place. If he does not give assurance in that respect, I am afraid that I shall have to press the matter to a Division.

Mr. Buchan: I hope to be brief. I must say in advance that I wish that I had been more closely involved in the discussions on the Bill. However, I left the matter in the good hands of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).
One aspect of the matter had escaped my notice. I thought that the provisions simpliciter gave access in return for protection. However, I now understand that that is not the case. I thought that access was part of the original deal. I believe that the lack of access is certainly an argument against the provisions. It seemed sensible that protection should be afforded in return for access to certain areas. Since that is not the case, I feel that I shall have to be a little tougher in my attitude. I can only plead ignorance that I did not appreciate the situation earlier.
It is surely wrong that in an area to which protection is given certain proprietors should be able to stay outside access orders. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said that individuals whose fishing areas were already sufficiently remunerative would gain by protection orders. It is those people who will be able, if they wish, to remain outside the Bill. It appears that a kind of double assistance is being afforded to those owners.
I thought that a further reason for seeking to bring protection orders to bear was that they would lead to control and to sensible management in the areas concerned. We must remember that if owners refuse access, that refusal will deprive fishermen of any advantages of opening up the use of water in those areas.
I had thought that access would automatically follow the granting of protection. We must not lose sight of the main purpose of the Bill—namely, the improvement of the present situation. However, if we do not receive assurances from the Minister, I shall be tempted to vote for the new clause. I am disappointed to discover the situation in regard to lack of access.
One of the great problems in Scotland in considering questions of land use and leisure use planning is to know exactly who owns what. A register would allow us to make a start on that important exercise. It is a painful job to discover where all the riparian owners operate. It would have been a great step forward if we had been able to have a register of riparian owners.
For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will be willing to accept the concept of access and protection as well as the suggested register. I realise that perhaps the wording of the clause is not correct, and we all know that it is difficult for Back Benchers to get drafting exactly right. However, if my hon. Friend the Minister accepts the principle behind the clause, I am sure that the drafting can be put right in the other place.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not wish to repeat the arguments we had in Committee, but the Law Society of Scotland feels strongly that the subject of access should be dealt with fully and clearly in this Bill. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter again and give an assurance that it will be fully considered in another place.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Canavan: I have a great deal of sympathy with the motives behind this proposal. Registration was mentioned in the Hunter Report and I do not know why the Government have decided not to incorporate it into the Bill.
I understand that the new clause is aimed at closing one of the loopholes in the Bill—that an owner or occupier of rights within a protected area can benefit indirectly from protection, yet not provide access. Such an owner could opt out and say that his patch would not come within the protection order. He could refuse to co-operate with proposals submitted to the Secretary of State by

the owners of adjoining land. This could cause all sorts of anomalies. Some people might want to keep a stretch of water to themselves for purely selfish reasons.
The Secretary of State's preference for whole river basins to be incorporated in a protection order would be of great benefit, but it will not necessarily be achieved by voluntary means. One landowner might prevent it. Let us suppose that there are four points on a stretch of river—A, B, C and D. The stretches A to B and C to D may be covered by protection orders, but the owner of the fishing rights between B and C could refuse to co-operate. He would benefit indirectly from the order, yet would provide no access except for himself and his friends or a syndicate.

The new clause would ensure that access was given in return for the benefits of protection. However, I wonder why the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) stopped at registration within protected areas. There would be great advantage in having a register of all fishing interests. We might find that the alleged owners and occupiers of fishing rights did not own them at all, or did not have any legal proof of ownership. If there were no proof, or if ownership were based on ancestral mythology, the rights should be owned and administered by a public body. This could be a beneficial side effect of incorporating registration into the Bill.

What happens to those who fail to register? Under the new clause, the onus would be on the Secretary of State to prepare the register. I would rather see the onus put on those who claim to own or occupy rights. These matters could be considered by the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said, it will be difficult to change the Bill in the House of Lords. There are even more landed gentry with fishing interests in another place than there are in this House. Nevertheless, if the Minister will at least promise to consider incorporating registration into the Bill, I shall be most grateful.

Mr. Monro: I have much sympathy with this new clause, though we are, perhaps inadvertently, falling into a trap over the definition of freshwater fish. I do not believe that we can have a register of fishing throughout the length of a river


without including salmon fishing. The two must eventually go hand in hand and we cannot legislate, as is proposed in the Bill, solely for a minimal amount of trout fishing.
Surely the Secretary of State must know the owners of the land and who will be affected by protection orders before deciding under Schedule 1 to make an order. Even more important, the Secretary of State, perhaps through some mystical committee, will appoint the now virtually powerless warden. The warden must know who owns what before he can carry out his duties. If he does not know who owns the land, he cannot carry out his duties.
Whether we have a formal register open to inspection by the public, or whether the committee which supervises the warden has a list of the owners of all the fishing in the protected area, does not matter, but there must be a list, otherwise the warden cannot carry out his duties. The least the Under-Secretary should do is to agree to re-examine this matter, which has been effectively ventilated by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). The other place will have a great deal of tidying up to do and it could well start with this issue.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: You were not present, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said that this was the third occasion on which we had discussed this issue. Perhaps that is a reflection on the Chair for accepting the new clause—but that is not for me. We have heard all the arguments before. Nothing new has been said, and I do not look forward with great joy to what I have to say for the third time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) admitted that he had not studied the Bill. As has been explained in great detail, the Bill is based on a voluntary concept. It is because the Bill is based on a voluntary approach by those who seek a protection order that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles has, fairly and constructively, suggested ways of compelling a recalcitrant or indifferent landowner at least to give information. We have considered this aspect and have gone as far as possible in a later amend-

ment, bearing in mind the weakness of the voluntary approach and conceding the desirability of accomplishing what the hon. Gentleman seeks to accomplish in his clause.

Mr. Buchan: I understand the voluntary aspect to be that a person who owns a stretch of water can receive State protection by agreeing to a scheme of access. The difficulty is that this is done on an area basis. A person, either directly or indirectly, is getting protection within his area although he may not be offering access to his stretch. There is a State element of compulsion for the protection but not a return element of compulsion for the access. We are dealing with the matter not on a voluntary /voluntary basis, but on a compulsory/voluntary basis, and we have it the wrong way round.

Mr. Brown: I do not want to get into a long philosophical argument. We discussed this at length in Committee. The safeguard is that if there is any sizeable stretch of water where the owner is not co-operating there will be no protection to that whole area. There is no other way of putting on the pressure. I agree that we have no evidence of what kind of landlord would not be interested in coming into an area and co-operating in seeking a protection order. I know that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles faces special difficulties. I am sure that in his area there are Liberal landowners, Tory landowners and now SNP landowners.

Mr. David Steel: Colin Tennant?

Mr. Brown: So far as I know, Colin Tennant is not an agricultural worker.
I recognise what the hon. Member is after. I think that we have gone as far as we can, bearing in mind the limitations and weaknesses of the voluntary system. Perhaps that can be made clearer on Amendment No. 14.
I would encourage a gentle bit of blackmail—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] My hon. Friends must accept that in certain rivers where clubs are operating and stocking or improving the management, there is nothing to stop the landowner taking advantage of the benefits of what has been put into the river. I hope that hon. Members will not say that the Bill is a landlords' charter when that


happens at the moment. We might be making too much of this, and I hope we are, but I concede that it would be easier administratively for anglers to know that a whole stretch was covered.
I take the point, but I think that we have gone as far as we can. The Secretary of State will be able to require that information, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should enable someone to say "No, you can go and get stuffed?" Will we follow that up with all the paraphernalia—[Interruption.] I am not being over-critical. I am giving the blanket assurance that, if there is the slightest doubt about an application for a protection order when large areas are owned by people who are not co-operating, the answer is not to give a protection order and so apply the maximum pressure on a difficult person.

Mr. David Steel: Perhaps I do not become any more persuasive on third hearing, but the Minister's replies do not become more convincing. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) asked why I provided for a register only in protection areas. I have no objection to a much wider register than that, but I was phrasing the new clause within the limited philosophy of the Bill.
I was interested that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) thought that any register should include salmon fishings. To be logical, he should have supported my previous new clause, because that would be a useful further development. My proposal is modest—merely that, when the protection orders are being made, a register should be drawn up of those with fishing rights in the area.
8.45 p.m.
I must confess, if one is allowed to confess these things, that the idea of a register was purely a device. It is very difficult to get discussion of a subject on Report unless one can think of a new method of achieving the same object. A register was not discussed in Committee, though one does not know the reason. That is why this new clause was fortunate to be selected.
In Committee, rather than go into the complication of a register, I was suggesting an even more limited amendment. For the benefit of hon. Members who

were not on the Committee, may I explain that I was proposing to say that, when an inquiry was being held into the possibility of creating a protection order, the Secretary of State should issue notices to all persons who had fishing rights within the proposed area, and that if someone chose not to turn up he should be aware that the Secretary of State would have power to impose conditions of access on a particular stretch of water. The Under-Secretary would not accept even that more limited proposal.
I did not and still cannot fathom why, for some metaphysical reason, the Government insist on the value of this voluntary approach. The Under-Secretary of State has spoken of the weakness of the voluntary approach. If he were to say "We are going to take power over the recalcitrant landlord", who would object? Certainly, it would not be the anglers of Scotland. They would not say that this was a wicked intervention by the Government into their affairs. The angling clubs will not object; and other owners will not object, for the reason I have given. They will not welcome participating and contributing to the running of a protection area while others—and perhaps only one individual—have no part in it but reap all the benefits.
As the Bill stands, it confers on one individual either a material benefit or a right of veto of the whole concept. Only one person owning a stretch of river could nullify the whole purpose of the Bill. I cannot understand why the Government insist on maintaining this basic defect in the Bill. Since the only concession made by the Under-Secretary of State is to say that the Secretary of State can call for information from such an individual, which is not much of a concession, and since he was not able to give any hope that the matter would be considered in another place, it is right for me to ask the House to divide in support of my New Clause 5.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read Second time.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Buchan (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.


Are we in the position of having carried the clause but reversing the position by saying the clause may not be added to the Bill? Is not this bringing Parliament into disrepute?

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Just before the Division was called it was quite clear that this clause had been unanimously passed by the House. On the Question being put "That the new clause be read a Second time", there was a clear shout of "Aye" and no shout of "No". Then the House was asked whether the new clause should be added to the Bill. Unfortunately, that proposal has been defeated

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): That could happen. I understand that that might be the position.

The House having divided: Ayes, 20, Noes, 118.

Division No. 77.]
AYES
8.49 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hunter, Adam
Watt, Hamish


Buchan, Norman
Lambie, David
Welsh, Andrew


Canavan, Dennis
MacCormick, Iain
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Crawford, Douglas
Penhaligon, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Cryer, Bob
Reid, George



Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freud, Clement
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Mr. David Steel and


Henderson, Douglas
Thompson, George
Mr. A. J. Beith.




NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Pavitt, Laurie


Ashton, Joe
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Atkinson, Norman
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, J. W.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rose, Paul B.


Bidwell, Sydney
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Darttord)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rowlands, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Buchanan, Richard
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)


Campbell, Ian
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silverman, Julius


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Small, William


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Judd, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Cohen, Stanley
Kerr, Russell
Spriggs, Leslie


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lee, John
Stott, Roger


Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton and Slough)
Strang, Gavin


Crawshaw, Richard
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dalyell, Tam
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Deakins, Eric
McElhone, Frank
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tinn, James


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Mackenzie, Gregor
Urwin, T. W.


Dempsey, James
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dormand, J. D.
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dunnett, Jack
Madden, Max
Ward, Michael


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Magee, Bryan
Watkins, David


Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Marks, Kenneth
Weetch, Ken


English, Michael
Marquand, David
Wellbeloved, James


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, James (Pollock)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Whitlock, William


Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Woodall, Alec


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Woof, Robert


Forrester, John
Moyle, Roland
Young, David (Bolton E)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Oakes Gordon
Mr. David Stoddart and


Hardy, Peter
Park, George
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parry, Robert

in the Division. The situation is that a new clause, clearly approved by the House, has not been included in the Bill. Is it in order to bring the situation to the attention of the Government so that they may include the proposal in the Bill at a later stage?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the clause has not been added to the Bill.

Clause 1

REGULATION OF FISHING FOR FRESHWATER FISH BY PROTECTION ORDER

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'persons' in line 7 and insert:
'(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that, if proposals submitted to him under this section were implemented, there would be a significant increase in access to fishing for freshwater fish in inland waters to which the proposals relate, he may, subject to subsection (2) below, making an order (in this Act referred to as a "protection order").
(1A) A protection order shall—
(a) be made in relation to such area as the Secretary of State may prescribe, which shall be the catchment area or such part thereof, as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, of any river; and
(b) prohibit'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendment No. 3.

Mr. Brown: I am sure that I shall carry my lion. Friends with me in this at least, in view of their helpful approach. What we are doing here is to highlight at the outset that the Bill's primary objective is to make more freshwater fishing available to anglers with no angling rights of their own, not to give protecion just to landlords. It seems reasonable to include a provision making our intention clear.
I concede that this amendment is a result of many representations made to me by hon. Members on the Standing Committee and by other hon. Members, as well as by individual anglers' clubs and associations which have written to me.

The amendment speaks for itself. We are trying to be as clear as possible about our intention. We have been quite happy to consider a revised form of words that are more specific. Our whole purpose is to see that encouragement is given not just to improve the quality of the sport, but to make it more widely available. I hope that the House will accept both amendments.

Sir John Gilmour: By making a major alteration to the first lines of Clause 1 the Minister has made it extremely diffi-

cult for us to follow him. He has said that he seeks by his amendment to make certain that more fishing is available to the general public. Everyone who has taken part in the debates in Committee will agree that that is a very laudable objective. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has said, if it had not been for our support, the Minister would not have either Clause 1 or Clause 2. I feel that he is serving us ill by his wording of the amendment.
The Minister says that there should be a significant increase in access to fishing for freshwater fish if a freshwater order is to be made. Since the hon. Gentleman's amendment was tabled, I have been in touch with people interested in fisheries in the west part of Fife, in Loch Fitty and the other reservoirs and lochs, where they were hoping very much to have a protection order. In Loch Fitty in particular there are about 160 acres of water. It caters for roughly 13,000 anglers a year. This has been made possible by stocking and policing the waters, and by keeping down poaching, with great difficulty. I am assured that these waters are being fished to the maximum allowable. If we accept the hon. Gentleman's wording in his amendment, it will not be possible to get a protection order, because it will not be possible to say that there will be a significant increase of access.
I am sure that there has not been time since these amendments were tabled to check, but there must be many other waters where, for instance, hotels have provided fishing for guests from overseas and elsewhere and where they have provided the maximum number of boats that the interests of running a proper fishery permit on a stretch of water.
Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether it is possible to have greater access to fishing incorporated in the Bill while still making it possible for those who have developed fisheries to obtain protection orders so that they money, time and labour that they have put in will not be wasted? I understand that reservoirs and lochs in West Fife are already being fished to the maximum as well as being poached. Therefore, they are being over-fished. I suggest that they deserve protection orders.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. We are not against


the spirit of the amendment about access. However, if people have spent money, time and effort in their fisheries and fishing is going on to the limit allowed, it should still be possible for them to obtain protection orders.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: That is a reasonable request. It might help if I try to relate this matter to subsection (2)(a). "Significant" is akin to "reasonable", or "from time to time", or such other words as appear quite frequently in legislation. I am advised that it is not as easy to define as "substantial". In other words, "significant", in the context of the amendment, could mean a small increase. I am not trying to adduce a debating argument. "Significant" could mean virtually no increase in access at all. It is, to some extent, related to the improvement or other information required by the Secretary of State before granting a protection order so that he can make a comparison.
I have given this matter careful thought. I am willing to try to persuade the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and, indeed, others who, I freely admit, may not have had enough time to consider the matter, that it would be possible for the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred to satisfy the conditions of "significant", because it relates to those who are already fishing and the fact that access is given.
There could be a variation. I am not being devious in saying that people will deliberately get round the provision. I concede that in the special circumstances of a virtually over-fished loch or reservoir "significant" would not mean doubling the number of people fishing there. In more normal circumstances, where we can see that there is a need for improvement and greater access, we think it right to show that clearly in the Bill. That is the object of the amendment and of the Bill.

Mr. Monro: I am not the least bit happy about what the Minister is trying to do here. All this stems from the Golden Lion meeting. The new Bill—the Golden Lion Bill—is so different from what we set out to do and hoped to achieve. I find it surprising that amend-

ments should have been tabled without there having been any consultation with those of us who are interested in this legislation. Some of the Government amendments are unacceptable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has explained very clearly the importance of the words, "significant increase". The Minister has now indicated that even a small increase would be significant. Let us consider the figures involved. I have been told authoritatively that 16,000 people fish the River Spey between Grantown and the sea. In the view of those who have managed the fishing in that river that is about the maximum it can take. However, we are anxious that, if it is the wish of those involved in fishing in the Spey basin, it should have a protection order so that the legal position of brown trout is clarified beyond doubt.
However, what would be a significant increase on 16,000 rods? A few hundred is not a significant increase. Yet, because of the wording of the amendment, the Spey might be prevented from having a protection order if it is the wish of those in the area to have one. Because of the inept drafting of amendments, perhaps through lack of time, because of changes of heart by Ministers and policy by the Government, the situation is now so befogged that anyone who tries to read Clause 1 with all the amendments fitted in and out will find it extremely difficult to do so.

Clause 1 is supposed to be the heart of any Bill. This one has become a significant shambles. Would it not be much better for the Minister to say "We have made a nonsense of this. The idea that we took up from the meeting at Stirling—we accept the principle of trying to make more trout fishing available—was so difficult to draft that we just did not have time to do it."? Would it not be much more sensible and fairer to the House and to those of us who have worked on the Bill for a long time for the Minister to withdraw the amendment and table a more adequate one in another place? That would be a more satisfactory approach than making this amendment and a number of others to Clauses 1, 2 and 3 which are far from what we thought we were helping the Government to introduce some weeks ago.

Will not the Minister accept the sensible solution of withdrawing Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to redraft them for the appropriate moment in another place? At present the Minister accepts that what the draftsmen have produced here is just a nonsense.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) feels so strongly about this matter, because I thought I had given a perfectly reasonable explanation of what might be significant.
I cannot comment on the River Spey. I suspect that the figures the hon. Member quoted also included people fishing for salmon. However, I point out to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), who said that a lot of poaching was going on, that I assume that if there was a protection order poaching would be greatly reduced and, one would hope, eliminated. In those circumstances it might equally be easy to satisfy the condition that there should be a significant increase in those who would be fishing legally.
The hon. Member for Dumfries said that this was monumental mismanagement. I wish that he would get together with my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who would tell him that nothing came out of the meeting in the Golden Lion Hotel, certainly nothing that satisfied my hon. Friend. I appreciate the attempt to separate me from some of my hon. Friends, but the hon. Member for Dumfries need not worry because we are already divided. I insist, therefore, that the amendment is not unreasonable, given the desire which has been expressed to me by so many people, including hon. Members, and organisations who were not at the Golden Lion that we should make our intentions clear in the Bill. That is what we have done.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does not my hon. Friend's problem stem from the fact that there are so many different conditions in various parts of Scotland and that to regard Scotland as a single entity in this respect is often unrealistic? Will he say something about the advisory committee and whether these matters would be covered by it?

Mr. Brown: The answer is "Yes", because the advisory committee will be consulted. This is one of the matters that it will have to take into account in giving the Secretary of State advice.
I come back to the main point of the amendment. It is a reasonable approach. Certainly, if hon. Members can give me further details and information based on the practical situation or the practical realities of night loch fishing, I shall be glad to look at them.

Mr. Adam Hunter: I should like to confirm what the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) said about Loch Fitty, which is in my constituency. Until a few years ago the loch provided free fishing until the weeds grew up to the surface over almost the entire area and made fishing impossible, except for some coarse fishing. I have seen pike 4 ft. long taken from the loch. The free fishing ended when a private firm took the loch over and cleaned out the weeds, poisoning most of the coarse fish. I understand that the company now charges for fishing in the loch.
I know that loch very well because I have walked around it many times and I can vouch for the fact of easy access to it, particularly for fishing at night. It would be a pity to see the loch overfished now, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, East should be taken into account.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 3, in page I, line 10, leave out from "in" to end of line 12 and insert:
the prescribed area".—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 in page 1, line 20 at end insert—
() he has consulted a body which in his opinion is representative of persons wishing to fish for freswater fish in inland waters in Scotland; and".
I have to admit that from my experiences and consultations that anglers—whether they are members of an association, members of a club or just ordinary individuals—are not ready for a body to be brought into being. I cannot foresee its happening in the next few months or even in the next six months without a lot of argument and discussion.
The Sports Council tried to do this in the past few years but the variety of conditions for angling in Scotland has meant an understandable reluctance on the part of some of the Highlands and the North-East to feel that they have any interest in the problems afflicting some anglers in Northern Scotland. That might be unfair, but it is understandable.
Consequently, it is desirable to accept this amendment, which seeks to set up a consultative body. The Secretary of State must avail himself of the requirement to consult. The body would comprise angling interests. I invite anyone who can suggest names or the kind of representation necessary to do so. I assure my hon. Friends that I should like to see on such an advisory body one or more representatives of the unorganised anglers. I am glad to hear some support from hon. Members, but the question is how to organise people who do not want to be organised. That is part of the difficulty.
This amendment does not rule out the future setting up of a body which can receive a substantial sum. It is a serious and genuine attempt in the short term to assure anglers that they are being consulted.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps I can put the matter more bluntly. Is not part of the trouble in this business that those who have been writing endless letters to the Minister know that these views were not reflected by angling clubs until a late stage? If angling clubs expect legislation to be introduced which is more to their liking, they should have pulled out their fingers a bit earlier.

Mr. Brown: That might be inelegant but it is absolutely true. I am not complaining. There has been a weakness—and perhaps I have to accept some responsibility for it—in conveying the contents of the Bill to clubs and associations right down to individual members. I received support for the Bill as it stood from the various associations, yet what we seek to do has not been understood further down the line. I fully accept what my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has said. It is helpful. The advisory body, which has to be consulted and which will comprise mainly anglers, should go some way towards

giving anglers confidence that we seek to make angling available to more people.

Mr. Monro: The Minister has introduced an important new issue and I want to ask him one or two questions about it. Why has he specifically referred to "freshwater" rather than "freshwater and salmon"? He knows that the definition under the 1951 Act—the Act I should have mentioned before—does not include salmon. He will throw away a great deal of expertise if he does not consult those who have experience of managing fishing over many years, who include many members of angling clubs, angling improvement associations and others who are well versed, qualified and skilled to give the Minister the advice he wants.
Why does the Minister wish to discard the interests of salmon fishing when salmon and trout and other freshwater fish go hand in hand when river improvements are considered, because trout cannot be looked at alone?
The Minister has come forward with the suggestion of setting up a committee from which he will get advice and which he will consult about protection orders. We cannot let this matter go in a speech of two or three minutes in support of this important new phase. The Department must have advised the Minister on what sort of body he is to set up, who is to be its chairman, how many people will be members of it, whether it will represent the whole of Scotland and whether it will be consulted about the whole of Scotland. The Minister cannot expect us to accept—I was about to say "hook, line and sinker", but that is not appropriate—the issue of a consultative body out of the blue tonight. It may be another Golden Lion amendment. I think that we are entitled to know far more about what the Minister is recommending, in the interest not only of this amendment but of those who fish in Scotland and who will, we hope, read about what is said in the House tonight.
I wonder whether this is to be one central body or a regional body, or a body for each "river board area"—in inverted commas, because we have not got such bodies, although we would like them in the future. It is the Minister's duty to spell out in great detail what he has in mind, because this body will be consulted in setting up all the protection orders in


Scotland. This is a major step. If we have no confidence in what the Minister is setting up, we shall come to endless difficulties on Schedule 1 and the implementation of the protection order system, because no one knows at this stage what sort of body this will be and when it is to be set up. We cannot just let this issue drop in a couple of minutes tonight.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I should like to add one or two comments to those made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). The proposal contained in the amendment is very vague. Any information which could be given by the Minister would be welcome. The amendment seems to arise out of Clause 1, where proposals are being made for protection orders. Protection orders are by nature local in impact. If, as I read the amendment, the body that the Minister has in mind is one that would be representative of fishing interests throughout Scotland and, therefore, a national body, would it not be better to consider a further amendment to this amendment, in another place, suggesting that the Minister be enabled to consult a body of bodies which are in his opinion representative? If necessary, the Minister could also consider circumscribing this amendment further to relate the consultation to areas which are likely to be affected directly by a protection order rather than in a very general sense.
I recognise that the Minister has some difficulties here. If he had accepted earlier proposals for area fishery boards, many of these problems would have been solved. However, he is still saddled with the need to provide a little more information and to give some assurances that local opinion will be consulted as well as opinion in Scotland generally.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Canavan: Reference has been made to the famous Golden Lion meeting. Has anything good arisen from it? I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) was present, but I did not see him. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for attending the meeting and, as it were, putting his head into the lion's mouth.
I forewarned my hon. Friend that it might turn out to be a stormy and hostile meeting- I had received many representations from my constituents and from

people elsewhere in Scotland to the effect that they considered this to be a bad Bill. They were especially perturbed that it was introduced by a Labour Government elected on a Socialist manifesto.
I raised the various points that had been made to me in Committee. My hon. Friend thought that I had misunderstood the Bill, as had the people who had written to me. The one good thing that emerged from the representations which were made by myself and many other hon. Members was the Golden Lion meeting. My hon. Friend kindly agreed to attend the meeting, at which all interested anglers were to be present. Despite the fact that my hon. Friend is a seasoned politician and campaigner, I had the impression that the mood of the meeting was an eye-opener even for him. From the beginning it was clear that there was a great deal of hostility towards the Bill. I hope that the amendment will go some way towards pleasing those who were at the meeting.
One of the evils of the Bill in its original form was that there was little, if anything, in the way of consultation with anglers about the terms of protection orders. They were not asked whether the price or the terms of access were fair. Anglers were involved only if they owned fishing rights or occupied fishing rights as individuals, or happened to be fortunate enough to be members of a club which owned or occupied such rights. At least there will now be consultations between anglers' representatives and the Secretary of State.
I do not think that the amendment goes far enough. To establish a body which is merely consultative is not enough. I believe that it will be impotent. However, I am grateful for small mercies. At least the amendment improves the Bill in its original form, but what plans does my hon. Friend have for ensuring that it will be a truly representative body? The amendment leaves the matter to the opinion of the Secretary of State. That leaves the Secretary of State with quite a lot of latitude.
Has my right hon. Friend formulated any ideas as to how he can ensure that this body will be as representative as possible of all sections of the angling community? It will be a difficult body to set up. From what I can gather,


there are two national associations—namely, the Scottish Anglers' Association and the Scottish Angling Clubs Association. However, there are a great many anglers who have nothing to do with either association. There are many anglers who are not even members of angling clubs. Very often that is not because they do not believe in them or do not want to join one but because they live in rural areas and it is too difficult to travel to meetings and to take part in a club's activities.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear in mind that there are two sorts of club. There was a breakdown in communications at an earlier stage on the issue of whether the Bill was fair. Representations were received from only one section of the angling community. Perhaps that was why the Golden Lion meeting gave a completely different impression from the evidence that had been received hitherto.
There are angling clubs which own fishing rights and angling clubs which do not. Possibly club members cannot afford to buy fishing rights. Nevertheless they consider that they have a right to fish for brown trout, and, therefore, they should be considered as possible members of this consultative body.
I believe that we should give the consultative body a name. Bodies tend to be a little more respectable if we call them something rather than merely refer to them in an anonymous fashion. Will the organisation qualify for the type of grant mentioned in Clause 5? That provision also mentions no particular body by name.
In Committee the Minister, when discussing possible grants under Clause 5, referred to "body" in the singular and "bodies" in the plural. Does he envisage a plurality of organisations covered by Clause 5? Will the body referred to in the amendment qualify for money so that it may be able to set itself up on a proper basis and become strongly organised?
Although I appreciate that the amendment does not go far enough, it would at least get the body off the ground if we were to give it a name. Why not call it, as we suggest, the Scottish Anglers' Trust, fund its operations and give it

a strong constitution so that it represents all sections of the angling community? Despite the imperfections of the Bill, such a body could in future grow into a powerful organisation representing the interests of all Scottish anglers.

Sir John Gilmour: I wish to underline the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for a little more information. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) made an interesting point. I agree that it might be an advantage to have one organisation for the Highlands and another for the Lowlands. That would make it easier to bring people together in various areas so that they would have sufficient knowledge to reach reasonable decisions.
However, if organisations are too large and cumbersome, they may not carry out their functions so well. I hope that the Minister will give the House a little more information on this subject.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) that I intend to make the body truly representative within the limitations of a committee which I envisage as including 10 to 12 members. I am not committing myself to that figure, but that is the kind of committee size we envisage.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) asked about the chairman. It is a little early to say who might be a suitable chairman for that post. I am not referring to the body mentioned in the Financial Memorandum or to the body mentioned in Clause 5. I am referring purely to an advisory body that will operate until such time as the new organisation—call it, for the sake of argument, the Anglers' Trust—comes into being.
The secretariat duties of the consultative body or advisory committee will be serviced by the Department and it will be a central consultative body. I know that many Conservative Members are familiar with some of the advisory bodies in agriculture. I have never known them to raise any objection to the general principle of advisory bodies which the Secretary of State consults.

Mr. Canavan: The Minister referred to the body mentioned in Clause 5 and implied that it was different from the organisation mentioned in the Financial


Memorandum. We see in the note beside Clause 5 that it relates to
Exchequer contributions towards organisations developing salmon or freshwater fisheries.
There appears to be a possibility under Clause 5 of various bodies benefiting. Why should this consultative body not benefit from a grant under the clause?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has not been following this matter. There is nothing to stop the organisation, which I hope will ultimately be set up, from handing out any of the money at its disposal to other clubs or groups, especially if they are, for instance, improving access.
We are talking about two bodies. In the amendment we are referring to the advisory committee which the Secretary of State will be obliged to consult. In the Bill we are dealing with the organisation we have referred to by names such as the Anglers' Trust. That body will bring together angling organisations and will be able to distribute to other organisations the sums mentioned in the Financial Memorandum.
In reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), I can say that it will be the intention of the advisory committee to consult local interests, particularly anglers, whether or not they are members of a club. But I cannot give a specific assurance that every area, region and local authority will be represented on the committee. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not expect that. We intend that the committee will consult as many local interests as possible, because consultation is the key to getting co-operation from people who may not understand the provision in Schedule 1 for seeking a protection order. There will be consultation with those in a local area who are directly involved.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'proposals' to 'were' in line 23.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 25, after 'available', insert '(i)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to discuss Government Amendments No. 8 and No. 9.

Mr. Brown: Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 8 ensures that protection cannot be given unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposals submitted to him will, if implemented, meet within reason the demand for fishing within the area of an order from persons wishing to fish for freshwater fish there, who have no rights in the waters covered by the proposal. This is a fairly minor amendment, but it is the only one of the group of any consequence.

Sir John Gilmour: I find this a little difficult to understand and I hope that the Under-Secretary can help me. Amendment No. 8 refers to:
persons who are neither owners nor occupiers of a right of fishing for freshwater fish".
By including those other people, are not the Government making it very difficult to keep the co-operation which I thought we had agreed to be so necessary? If we do not take with us the owners and the people who have fishing rights but seem to be catering for persons who have no fishing rights, we may risk losing that measure of co-operation which the Minister and I both want to achieve.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I do not think so. It was impressed on me that many people have consent but not a permit to fish. There may be a club which is allowed by an owner to fish, although it has no statutory right to do so because it is not an occupier and has no rights. It is all part of the process of giving information and submitting the proposal. I am sure that most landowners and clubs will willingly give that information. A club or individuals may be given permission to fish with the consent of the owner. It is a co-operative approach.

Mr. Monro: I wish that I felt as confident as the Minister does that this is a satisfactory arrangement. The Director of the Recreation Leisure Committee of the Lothian Regional Council is of the opinion that people living in the Lothians, where there are comparatively few rivers for fishing, would welcome an opportunity to be involved in protection orders relating to other parts of Scotland where they do most of their fishing.
Is the main purpose of the amendment to give people living in, say, Central Scotland the opportunity to request a protection order on the Borders or in the Highlands in respect of water within motoring distance at weekends? That could cause disharmony. I may be reading into the amendment something that is not there, but if someone who was far removed from the river involved tried to promote a protection order through the Secretary of State under the procedures of Schedule 1, a great deal of dissatisfaction might be caused.
We should like a little more explanation of how the Minister envisages this procedure and how under Schedule 1 a person such as I have described will initiate the protection order. That person's knowledge and practical experience of the river may be limited. A person applying for a protection order should have some connection with the river concerned and should not just turn up out of the blue and ask for a protection order so that he can have some brown trout fishing.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The hon. Member is under a misconception. These people will not be involved in initiating proposals for a protection order. The amended Bill will make this clear. This matter relates to existing demand. Where a club or other owner knows the people who fish with permission on an ad hoc basis, that information should be included in the information given to the Secretary of State. They will not be initiating anything, but we want to know what part of the demand for fishing they represent.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 2, line 2, after 'demand', insert
'by persons who are neither owners nor occupiers of a right of fishing for freshwater fish in the waters to which the proposals relate nor members of a club which is such an owner or occupier in those waters'.

No. 9, in page 2 line 2 at end insert '(ii)'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 5, leave out
'The Secretary of State may require that'.
This amendment is in response to an assurance I give in Committee. It makes

it obligatory for proposers to give full information on the matters specified in the subsection. It removes discretion from the Secretary of State in respect of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) but permits him to specify other matters under paragraph (d).

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 22, leave out from 'may' to 'the' in line 24 and insert 'have regard to'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 12.

Mr. Brown: Amendment No. 11 provides that, while the Secretary of State may take account, for the purposes of comparison, of the standards of facilities available in other areas, he is not to be limited by them but may require better facilities than those which exist elsewhere before approving a protection order.

Amendment No. 12 relates to our discussion in Committee of the word "other". I am happy to accept the point which was made then.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 2, line 25, leave out 'other waters' and insert:
'waters other than those to which the proposals relate'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 27, after 'charges', insert:
'which should be related to the expenditure already made or forecast in the application'.
I thank the Under-Secretary for the amendments that he has just made.
This amendment relates to a comparatively small point but it will add to the clarity of the Bill. It is about time we got something out of the Government. It would make it clear that the charges should be related to expenditure which has already been made for fisheries improvement and to what is forecast by whatever committee will be in charge of further improvements under a protection order. This amendment would be a valuable addition to clarity.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I have to ask the House to oppose this amendment which we discussed in some detail in Committee. I would hope that the advisory committee would take this feature into account, but it would create more trouble if we were to provide that the charges would be specifically related to expenditure.
In spite of what I might have said about some of them, I am sure that most anglers are reasonable and if there were an application for a protection order, it would be reasonable to take expenditure into account. But it would be totally wrong to tie charges specifically to expenditure, because other items need to be brought in to make an adequate comparison. I should have thought that anglers themselves, recognising that expenditure had been incurred in relation to improvements, would be sufficiently understanding to accept that they were getting better value for money.

Sir John Gilmour: I wonder whether the Under-Secretary is right in saying that. If people saw what the expenditure was, they would more readily accept an increased charge. Already I have seen from local papers in Scotland that there is considerable discussion as to why, for instance, the charge levied by the Tayside Regional Council for fishing is at one level while the charge made by another regional council is at another level. Would it not help to explain to everyone the cause of the difference in charges, that, for example, the difference arose because in one area expenditure of some hundreds of pounds was incurred while in another area expenditure was very low?
There are certain waters where, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter), a lot of money has to be spent cleaning out weed and getting out pike. In other and faster flowing waters it is possible to stock with fish for very much less. If people are told the reason for the amount of the charge for providing facilities, the result might be more co-operation, making the operation easier.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 32, at end insert:

'(g) the number of persons permitted to fish who are neither owners nor occupiers of a right of fishing for freshwater fish in those waters nor members of a club which is such an owner or occupier in those waters; and
(h) any other matters which the Secretary of State considers relevant.
(4A) The Secretary of State may at any time require an owner or occupier of a right of a fishing for freshwater fish in a prescribed area to furnish him with information regarding the implementation in that area of proposals in so far as they relate to that right'.
This amendment, with Amendment No. 8, which we have already dealt with, emphasises that in considering the value of the proposals account should be taken of the needs of anglers who want to be able to fish in the waters of local clubs, hotels or other owners. Proposals from such sources will be of little consequence except in so far as they offer fishing to outsiders on reasonable terms and irrespective of the number of club members or hotel guests wishing to fish. New sub-paragraph (h) recognises that there may be other matters to which the Secretary of State may on occasion wish to pay regard in considering proposals. It is a general saver.
New subsection (4A) emphasises the need for proposals to be fully adhered to if protection is not to be questioned and, if warranted, withdrawn. It will also, in practical terms, enable the Secretary of State to obtain full information at any time as to the extent to which proposals are being implemented. The fear has been expressed to me that certain people can put forward proposals and within months renege on them, not complying with the intention. We are trying in a fair and proper way to tighten up in this respect. It should not cause the slightest difficulty to the vast majority who will be operating their proposals if given protection——

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill and the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dunn.]

FRESHWATER AND SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The amendment should help to allay some of the fears which certain of my hon. Friends have conveyed to me on behalf of others. There is no more to it than that.

Mr. Dalyell: Concerning those fears, I have transmitted questions to my hon. Friend from my constituents, Mr. John Morrison, Secretary of the Blackridge Angling Club, and Mr. Henry Meikle, of the Almond Angling Club, both of whom are concerned about the problem of hotels officially advertising fishing rights to those who may want two or three days' fishing but who do not wish to stay at the hotels. The fear is that the hotels will keep all the fishing to themselves and not make it available. This fear has been raised on previous occasions. Is it covered by this amendment?

Sir John Gilmour: Presumably this is another Golden Lion clause. If a protection order is asked for with a view to improving the fishing, it is bound to lead to more fishing being available to people other than the owner.
The provision in the amendment that I question most is subsection (4A) which says:
The Secretary of State may at any time require an owner or occupier of a right of a fishing for freshwate fish in a prescribed area to furnish him with information regarding the implementation in that area of proposals".
I find it difficult to understand the sort of information for which the Secretary of

State is looking, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could give us more information about what he thinks the Secretary of State will ask.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: That depends on whether anyone makes a complaint. An individual or some of the individuals to whom my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred might complain that part of the proposals submitted to the Secretary of State seeking a protection order had not been carried out or had not been complied with or that there was some suspicion that there was not the increased access intended by the proposals. I think that it is a quite reasonable proposition.
Incidentally, I object to all this free plugging for the Golden Lion Hotel. This is a very reasonable amendment. It was represented to me in Committee that there should be some kind of follow-up providing some indication that the Secretary of State could ask for information before he considered making a decision to revoke an order. The amendment, therefore, represents the injection of a bit more democracy into the procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 15 in page 2, line 36, leave out:
'the proposals referred to in subsection (2)(a) above' and insert 'proposals'.

No. 16 in page 3, fine 15, at end insert—
'(9) In subsections (1), (2)(b), (4A) and (5) above "proposals" means proposals as originally submitted to the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, as modified under subsection (3) above.'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Clause 2

APPOINTMENT OF WARDENS TO SECURE COMPLIANCE WITH PROTECTION ORDER

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 22, after 'above', insert 'or a constable'.
This amendment is consequential on the excision in Committee of subsection (3), which excuses police from having a duty to enforce a protection order. We accept the decision of the Committee, and the amendment follows from that.

Sir John Gilmour: We thank the hon. Gentleman for the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 3, line 23, leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may consider Amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 24, after 'boat', insert
container, tent, caravan, or vehicle',
and Government Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24.

Mr. Brown: Amendments Nos. 20 and 22 remove the powers of search given to a warden under subsection (2)(a) and (b) and restrict his powers of seizure to cases when he has reason to suspect an offence under the Bill. They are designed to meet the complaints about wardens being given powers to search in connection with such a trivial offence as trout poaching. It has been argued that it was excessive to give wardens all the powers that we were suggesting.
In Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 we are clearing up what is meant by "land" or
in the vicinity of any waters.
They are linked with the criticisms made about the powers of wardens. They are reasonable amendments which I hope will be accepted.

Mr. Monro: These are the most objectionable amendments of the lot and I hope that, if necessary, we can have a separate Division on Amendment No. 21.
In Committee, the Opposition and the Liberal Member on the Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and

Peebles (Mr. Steel), argued strongly for increased powers for wardens. We said that the duties of a warden should be nearer to those of a water bailiff as laid down in a number of Acts. But I do not propose to go into detail about them now. The Secretary of State will be appointing wardens, no doubt to be looked after by a local committee, but giving them virtually no powers under Clause 2 or Clause 3.
We feel strongly that if the Bill is to have any practical impact over trout fishing the Government must say that they wish firm action to be taken against poachers and others who, although they think that they have a right to fish, have no right to do so. It is wrong to take away these powers at such a late stage. There has been no consultation and there was no indication in Committee that the Government would remove paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) without further discussion other than what may have taken place at the celebrated meeting in Stirling.
What power is now to be left with a warden? He can make inquiries and ask the fisherman whether he has written permission—bearing in mind that the warden does not know, according to the Under-Secretary, as there is no register, whether he is entitled in the first place to be inquiring on this beat of the water as to who owns it. He has that limited power, and he will have certain other powers as proposed in Amendment No. 22 to look around the river bank for
any instrument or article used or calculated to be of use in such contravention.
A warden is not, apparently, allowed to look in any building, and is certainly not allowed to look in a car boot, which is the first place where most people would look for fish taken by a poacher. Certainly, if the Minister has his way and our amendment is not accepted, or if it is defeated in a Division, the warden will not be allowed to look in any form of container, which might include a creel, a caravan or even a tent.
The warden, who is supposed to be protecting the water, will have so little power that he will very nearly be left out of court by most people who are prepared to risk fishing illegally. It is very serious that the Government have taken powers away from the warden instead of giving him powers broadly equivalent to those


of a water bailiff. I know that the Hunter Commission originally suggested that water bailiffs should be termed "inter-fishery wardens", but here we have a fishery warden who has so little powers that poachers will take no interest at all in his presence.
This is a crucial failure in a Bill in which the Government have set out to help to provide protection for trout fishing. The official who is supposed to enforce the protection has been given no power to do so. This is one of the most serious changes in the Bill and one which we strongly oppose.
There is a fundamental difference between us. The Minister thinks that stealing a brown trout is of far less consequence than stealing a salmon. As I said in Committee, the financial value is very significantly different but the moral issue of theft is just the same, and I do not see why the Minister should let off lightly those who steal trout as opposed to those who steal a sea trout, a herling or even a salmon.
The Minister has much more explanation to give before we can come to a decision on these new amendments. I know that he is probably under enormous pressure from his Whips to get the Bill through at all costs and at all speed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be helpful if I mention that, if it should so happen that Amendment No. 20 is carried, Amendment No. 21 will fall.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: In the unlikely event of that not happening, it might be appropriate for me to make a short contribution.
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he is doing here. Perhaps I might recover some ground of friendship after the disagreement that we had an hour or so ago. There are weaknesses in the access protection aspect. Therefore, we should not have over-tough methods regarding search.
What my hon. Friend has done is in line with trends towards more flexibility in the application of that which might impede civil liberties. If he needs further support, he can find it by looking at Amendment No. 21, where the Opposition wish to extend the area of search to

container, tent, caravan or vehicle".
It would be ludicrous to have wardens, water bailiffs or whatever name they are given in areas where people go for leisure and recreation with no thought of fishing but whose tents, caravans and so on would be subject to search. It simply is not on. When I think of my early days with the Craigdhu Club and others, I can imagine what would have happened if their tents had been searched.
The Opposition should think again. I thank my hon. Friend for putting forward his amendments.

Mr. Monro: Why was the hon. Gentleman, when Under-Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, happy to give bailiffs power to do just that?

Mr. Buchan: We are trying to extend leisure activities and to give protection and access in return. The Bill has not fundamentally succeeded in doing what it should do. I am sure that in a few years we shall have to bring in another Bill to do it. That is another reason why we should not strengthen the protection, prevention and search aspect. That is why I would oppose the Tory amendment. I was not notorious for being a hard-liner as an Under-Secretary of State in the old days, nor am I now.

Mr. Donald Stewart: My hon. Friends and I are delighted with Amendment No. 20, which proposes to leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). We felt that that procedure was extraordinarily tough. The police have some training in discretion as to where they search and they would not lightly undertake that task without some thought. The original proposal was drastic. I congratulate the Minister on withdrawing it and assure him that if the matter is forced to a Division we will support the amendment.

Mr. David Steel: I should like more information about removing the reference to the lack of duties of constables regarding the amendment which was carried in Committee. As I read it—I may be wrong—there will still be a general obligation on the police to enforce the legislation. I share the view of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that this is a sudden development, but the Under-Secretary of State may be right to delete these powers for the wardens.
The hon. Member for Dumfries was wrong when he said that he solicited my support. If he looks at the foot of column 178 of the report of proceedings in Committee, he will see that I did not support him in seeking extra powers for wardens. On balance, I think that the Government are right to remove these paragraphs. However, perhaps the Under-Secretary will say something about the amendment which we moved in Committee regarding constables.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: T wish to make a brief intervention in support of my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). In my constituency, apart from the well known River Dee and the River Don, there are many tributaries. It is our object not in any way to restrict fishing opportunities. However, to make them good one must have wardens. It is no good having wardens unless they have reasonable and proper powers. I hope that when the Minister replies he will comment upon this matter.

Sir John Gilmour: I am not certain whether Amendment No. 21 is not simply an invitation for someone who goes fishing to take a tent so that he can hide his poached spoils. Perhaps I should not have tabled the amendment.
I should like the Minister to comment on Amendment No. 24, which applies to Clause 3. It makes it impossible for a warden to do what he is asked to do under Clause 2(d). I hope that I am making myself clear. Amendment No. 24 removes paragraph (b) of Clause 3(1), which refers back to paragraph (d) of Clause 2(2). That means that it is not possible for the warden to
make enquiry as to the legal right or written permission of any person to fish".
How will a warden operate unless he asks a person to show him his permit? In my view, we are taking away from the warden the right to challenge a person. I do not believe that any Opposition Members think in punitive terms of a warden. We had terrible pictures painted in Committee about what would happen to a warden if he met some Dundee fishermen. It seemed more likely that the warden would come off worse.
I feel that we are expecting a great deal of someone whom we ask to be a warden, because we are not giving him the right to say to a person fishing on a loch or a river "Show me your permit". In my view, we are making a nonsense of the warden's position.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I do not think that the position is as bad as the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) suggests. I point out to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that I stand by the fact that theft is theft and it docs not matter what is involved. However, there is a difference between a salmon and a trout even under the law.
I am convinced that if we want to create an enlightened angling population it is wrong to push things at such a pace that we merely convince anglers that we are doing something that is not in their interests. We have a long way to go to get even the concept of a warden accepted by trout fishermen.
I repeat that the duty of a warden in the first place is to ask whether an angler has permission to fish. We are not taking this duty from the warden. In these circumstances, he still has the power to seize tackle. That is not an unreasonable kind of discipline or authority for a warden to possess. Therefore, that covers the main point without moving on to include the right of search and all the emotive arguments that seem to arise over that.

Amendment No. 24 confines a warden's powers of entry on land to all places on land in the vicinity of water or in the area of the protection order. I appreciate that Opposition Members are not happy about some of these amendments. In my view, the lack of knowledge and understanding that seems to exist about our proposals has made it reasonable for me to consider some kind of change in the powers of wardens. Having a warden at all is a new concept. If a protection order was sought and granted, out of that experience would grow a gradual acceptance by anglers of the role that wardens have to play. However, that is something for the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 3, line 42, at end insert—
(b) if he has reasonable cause to suspect that a contravention of a prohibition contained in


a protection Order has taken place, within the prescribed area seize any instrument or article used or calculated to be of use in such contravention."—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 3

POWERS OF ENTRY AND OBSTRUCTION OF WARDENS ETC.

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 4, line 4, leave out
paragraphs (a) to (c) of".

No. 24, in page 4, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 4, line 36, at end insert—
(5) In this this section 'land' does not include any building thereon.

Mr. Speaker: With it we may also discuss Amendment No. 26, in page 4, line 36, at end insert—
(5) In this section 'land' does not include any permanent building thereon.

Mr. Brown: The amendment aims to clear up what is meant by "land", including buildings. Entry to buildings is not necessary to enable wardens to carry out their duties under the Bill. Therefore, I suggest that the House should accept Amendment No. 25 and reject Amendment No. 26.

Sir John Gilmour: We would accept the exclusion of certain buildings such as dwelling houses because that is reasonable. However, there might be a fishing shelter or a temporary structure on the bank of the river, and that would surely bf one of the places that a warden should have the right to search.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS ORGANISATIONS DEVELOPING SALMON OR FRESHWATER FISHERIES

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 5, line 7, leave out 'salmon or'.
This issue has caused widespread misunderstanding outside. I have had to say repeatedly that the reference to salmon was necessary only because of fish farming and some of the technicalities which were discussed. Here we are deleting the reference to salmon to make

it clear that the advisory committee and the organisation in question will be mainly involved in trout fishing. It will not prevent them looking at salmon, but it is better to make it clear that the aim and object of the Bill concerns trout fishing.

Sir John Gilmour: I understand the purpose of the amendment, but it seems to involve a retrograde step. There must be many occasions when in working to improve a river it will be difficult to avoid having some effect on the other fish, and these might be salmon and sea trout.

Mr. David Steel: It would be best if the Minister did not press this amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) that the Bill is not improved by it.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 5, line 8, at end add—
'The sums which the Secretary of State pays under this section shall not exceed £160,000 in the three years immediately following the making of the first protection order under section 1 of this Act except so far as any excess over the said sum of £160,000 has been authorised by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament'.
In Committee we discussed the availability of this money. Several times the Minister said that the Explanatory Memorandum stated that £160,000 was to be made available. The Explanatory Memorandum, however, is not incorporated in the Bill when it is enacted. With the sort of difficulties that the Minister will face in getting the Bill off the ground and the bodies mobilised to help administer protection orders, it could be that to restrict the spending of the money to three years after the passing of the Act might be too short a period. The alternative which I am suggesting is that the three years should follow the making of the first protection order. In view of my co-operative approach to the Minister, I hope that he will reciprocate and accept the amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am sorry that I cannot be as co-operative as the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) would like. We have now introduced a new concept with the advisory committee.


In those circumstances, it would be even more unrealistic to put a strict time limit on the handing out of this money. We shall reject this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 6, leave out lines 33 to 35.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Schedule 1

PROVISIONS AS TO MAKING, VARIATION AND REVOCATION OF PROTECTION ORDERS

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 32 in page 9, line 29, at end insert—

'Publication of Orders

The Secretary of State shall cause to be published each year a list of prescribed areas which are the subject of protection orders.'

This is a simple amendment which, I hope, will meet with approval from the Government. It suggests that as part of his duty the Secretary of State
shall cause to be published each year a list of prescribed areas which are the subject of protection orders.
The aim of this amendment is to give some indication to those who fish that they are not fishing in protected waters and to ensure that they know their rights. There is need of an obligation by the Government to publish a list of areas that have been registered and approved as the subject of protection orders so that anglers do not unwittingly fish in the wrong places. It is a simple amendment. I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept it or something similar.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am happy to accept this amendment. It will enable the public to see where fishing for freshwater fish is available on reasonable terms and where fishing without permission is illegal. No great expense will be involved in compiling and publishing the list. It may be appropriate to include it in the Department's annual report. Whether it is a good or a bad thing, in view of the increase in the interest in angling matters that the Bill has undoubtedly generated I hope that when the list is published people will read it.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES AGAINST ENACTMENTS RELATING TO SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES.

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 11, column 4, line 8, leave out '£100' and insert '£1.'

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 34, in page 11, column 5, line 9, leave out '£200' and insert '£2'.

Sir J. Gilmour: I raised this matter in the Standing Committee because a firm at Montrose was prosecuted under Section 23 of the 1868 Act. I understand that that was the first time that any prosecution has been made under that Act.
It did not seem practical or possible under the Bill to table an amendment which made provision in respect of the 1868 Act. Under Schedule 2 to the Government seek permission to upgrade the financial penalties for various offences under the 1868 Act. This appears to be a technical infringement which is connected with whether pins that are hammered into the sand are or are not removed during the close season. It could not possibly be said that fish were being taken illegally if the pins were left in. Therefore, it is not right to accept an increase in the penalty proposed in the Schedule. As it appears to be a technical offence, the fine should be reduced to the minimum to show that it is not right for recourse to law to be taken in this instance.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I doubt that the House would like a long explanation from me on the merits or otherwise of Section 23 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has raised this subject with me. It is probably a matter for the courts. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise it with me again, I shall be more than happy to see whether there is any way to clarify it.
The amendment does not concern the substance of the Bill, but the hon. Member has performed a duty in drawing attention to something which has given rise to protests from those who dispute how the law operates. I hope that with


this explanation the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Monro: This is a sad end to what we all hoped would be a better Bill. Bearing in mind that the Bill stemmed originally from the great thoughts of the Hunter Report, and subsequently from the White Paper in 1971, and that it set out on the provision of additional trout fishing, we have seen it boil down to something that is not nearly as satisfactory as we thought it would be.
I shall not add to my criticism of Clause 1 as it now stands criticism of the major drafting changes of the last week and the fact that there was so little consultation with those who had helped to save the Bill in Committee—Liberal Members and Conservative Members—before the amendments were presented over the weekend. We hope that there will be a good deal of tidying up in another place.
However, for all that, we still wish the Bill well in that we want more trout fishing made available. I am glad that through the Bill we have clarified the position about the legality of trout fishing, which for far too long has been considered the right of anyone when that has not been the true position.
The changes that the Government have made tonight leave a great deal to be decided and clarified, particularly in relation to the new consultative committee. That certainly in no way takes the place of the fishery board proposal in the long term, when we come to legislating for salmon fishing, or of an advisory committee, as put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), which would advise the Secretary of State on the practicalities of fishing improvement and on whether at any one time salmon and trout fishing can be harmonised in any particular area.
It is clear that the Minister now has no practical advisers. He has only the consultative committee, which will be

formed basically of anglers who may not have any particular knowledge or skill in river management, advising him on protection orders and whether certain waters shall be made available. We firmly believe that what is required is advice on fishings as a whole from much more experienced people. I hope that the Government will examine this matter very carefully and think again, even before the Bill leaves another place, because at present the consultative committee is still very vague in the Government's mind. A great deal of clarification is required before it can be set up.
We have examined the protection order system and it should be of practical assistance, but I still strongly criticise the lack of powers of the wardens who are to implement the orders. I do not understand the Minister's attitude that a warden can do his job with virtually no powers. At least the wardens should have the powers of a water bailiff. In any event, it seems unnecessary to duplicate a service which might well be provided by extending the water bailiffs' powers to deal with salmon and trout poaching.
The Minister's attitude to finance is disappointing. Surely what we asked for in Clause 5 was reasonable. The hon. Gentleman could have given way, if only so that when the additional resources are required there will be an opportunity to debate them in the House.
My hon. Friends and I hope that the Bill will be still further improved in another place. I hope that the Government will not conclude their thinking. It seems that only in the past week or so have they begun to realise what is and is not in the Bill. It would have been advantageous to the Bill and to trout fishing in Scotland if the Government had thought deeply but swiftly about some of the proposals that have been put forward tonight. If they are prepared to introduce amendments in another place, I shall be gratified that some positive and constructive action can be accredited to tonight's proceedings, which by and large I have found thoroughly disappointing.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. David Lambie: This was a bad Bill, and the amendments that the Government have accepted in Committee and on Report have not


made it a good Bill. In those circumstances I accept the status quo. I accept that we should continue with the present legislation.
The Hunter Committee's Report was published in 1965. Over 10 years have elapsed since its publication, and we have a Bill which has received the mild approval of Conservatives. The Bill was produced by a Labour Government, but it continues the Tory philosophy that applies to land or anything applying to land.
From 1965 to 1970 the Labour Government had an opportunity of making a fundamental review of the Scottish fisheries following publication of the Hunter Report. From 1970 to 1974 the Conservative Government had an equal opportunity. The Opposition have no right to criticise the Government for doing nothing. At least the Government have produced a Bill. The Conservatives produced nothing. The Opposition Members who are now on the Front Bench were in control four years ago.
The Government should have taken the opportunity to introduce a fundamental change in the fishing rights and facilities in Scotland. In the area I represent in Ayrshire, fishing is one of the major leisure occupations of the working man. The Government should have introduced a Bill to extend the facilities of the working man. They should have hammered the power of the landlords to prohibit fishing by ordinary working people who do not have the money to finance fishing on various stretches of river.
We should scrap the Bill. We should leave the Scottish Assembly, which I hope will be in power in Scotland in 1977 or 1978, to grasp the nettle of the Scottish fisheries. We should leave it to the Scottish Assembly, which will be a purely Scottish body, to deal with this fundamental problem affecting a large number of people in Scotland. For these reasons, I shall oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: For once I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). On Second Reading there was little response from the angling clubs. This was regrettable. But what has happened since is that the angling bodies, improvement associations,

the clubs and anglers in general have become vociferous because they have realised the effect of the Bill.
The main deficiencies are to be found in relation to Clause 1. That provision will remove rights which have been enjoyed for many years. If the Government had come up with provisions aimed at protecting fishermen's interests, the attitude of fishermen in general might have been more sympathetic to the Bill. This matter has now been boiling away for a period of 10 years, if not longer. From time to time angling associations have pointed to the need to implement the Hunter Report, but if they had examined that Report more closely they might have taken a different view. They thought that the time for action had arrived, but when they realised what the Government had in mind their views became jaundiced. They took the view that rights were being removed from them for very little benefit to anglers.
I shall not go into all the arguments because they have been fully dealt with in earlier stages of the Bill's progress, but I am very much influenced by the fact that there appears to be no effective control in the making of protection orders. I appreciate that the Government have introduced a number of amendments to the Bill. However, I have taken steps to canvass opinion among the angling fraternity, and that opinion is strongly to the effect that the Bill is a bad one and that it has been improved only marginally in the course of its passage through the House. Anglers take the view that they have exchanged the freedom to fish for brown trout for insufficient benefits in return. Many anglers would be willing to be co-operative if they believed that the Bill would lead to greater access to new waters and to an improvement in the quality of fishings. If that were the case, they would be willing to accept a change in the legal framework. Unfortunately, that opportunity has been wasted and anglers are being offered a mess of fish pottage in exchange for the loss of their rights. Those rights are taken seriously by anglers, and they feel strongly about this issue. Therefore, I have no hesitation in advising my hon. Friends to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Canavan: When the Bill was first introduced, many people, particularly


those in Government circles, thought that it would sneak through unopposed because they probably considered that most people would regard it as a rather insignificant measure. But the Bill obviously has had a stormy passage; it has aroused hostility among anglers and they have made representations to hon. Members, including myself. We have tried to raise their points and to draft amendments to cover their suggestions, but we have not had much co-operation from the Government on many of these matters.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). He is not able to be here tonight because of illness. I understand that he is in hospital. If he were here, I am sure that his voice would be raised in opposition. He was one of the Bill's most vociferous opponents in Committee, and I was grateful for his support in formulating amendments and trying, albeit in vain, to get the Government to support them.
The famous meeting at the Golden Lion was perhaps the greatest achievement arising out of all the representations made by other hon. Members and myself. If one good thing came out of the Golden Lion meeting, it was the Government amendment incorporated into the Bill tonight which sets up a consultative body of anglers which will be involved at an early stage in negotiations with the Secretary of State about whether the terms of protection orders are fair. However, this body is far too weak and impotent to deal with the problem of making Scottish fisheries more accessible.
Despite small improvements which have been made, the Bill has many imperfections and weaknesses. It is claimed that the basis of the Bill is protection in return for access. But this rests on a voluntary basis. Criticism of this is not, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary sometimes seems to suspect, extremist Left-wing claptrap. Even the hon. Member for Roxburgh-Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who is not known for his Left-wing radical tendencies, has asked why the basis of the Bill should be purely voluntary.
If the Labour Government are waiting to change the law of this country until they have the agreement of landlords, fishing syndicates and similar over-

privileged groups, they must be living in cloud-cuckoo-land. We shall never get the agreement of such people, and we were not elected to go on our knees and ask for their voluntary co-operation. We were elected by a majority in Scotland and the United Kingdom to take power from those people, not to kow-tow to them and talk about voluntary agreements.
The Bill's biggest loophole is one through which even the most stupid landlord will be able to drive a horse and cart. Landlords will be allowed to get indirect benefits from the protection of surrounding areas while still not allowing access to their stretch of water. I have no doubt that many landlords, selfish as they often are, will be tempted to do just that.
There is little in the Bill which fulfils the policy laid down by the annual conference and the Scottish conferences of the Labour Party. Many people in the rank and file of the party in Scotland, who have worked hard in formulating policy, will be very disappointed with the Bill.
In deciding whether to vote against the Government—which is something I do not like and do only infrequently after a great deal of reflection—I have to consider how the Bill, with all its imperfections, compares with the status quo. How does it compare with existing legislation? Is it an improvement on existing legislation? Will it help to make things better for the ordinary working-class angler? Will it give him more access? Is it an improvement on the present situation? I do not think that it is, and I am sure that the majority of Scottish anglers would agree with me.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) fairly put the dilemma of those who have been critical of parts of the Bill. The judgment we have to make on Third Reading is whether on balance it is better to vote for the Bill, with all its imperfections, or retain the status quo. The hon. Gentleman told us that he would not indulge in his usual Left-wing claptrap. He did not, and he seized ably on the deficiencies of the Bill. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not be embarrassed by my saying that I am in the awkward position of coming down off


the fence on his side, despite the deficiencies of the Bill, of which we have heard many times and which are still debatable in another place.
Is the Bill, defective though it is, better than the status quo? At a meeting I had, not in a hotel in Stirling but in the Railway Hotel in Newton St. Boswells, I met representatives of 5,000 anglers who said that although they were critical of parts of the Bill they accepted that it was a step forward.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is not able to be with us tonight. He made many contributions in Committee. When I listen to him and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) I get the impression that the angling clubs in Dundee have been late in getting information about the Bill—which cannot be entirely their fault—and have not understood what it is about.
Angling clubs vary very much, and there is a certain amount of internecine war among them. Some control relatively prosperous and good fishing waters in the Tweed basin and others control poor waters. They vary widely, but they are all agreed that there is no question of a right being taken away by the Bill, unless one is talking of the chaotic right for anyone to go anywhere and fish freely, which results in the lack of proper control and no development of fishing. That is the position now. The unanimous view of all those clubs is that the Bill is a step in the right direction. They are critical of parts of the Bill, as I have been and will continue to be, but on balance they regard it as an improvement on the status quo.
I would have expected much better of the Government, but if one has to make a judgment, as one does on Third Reading, whether to accept the Bill or the chaos that we have, I prefer the Bill as a step forward and I hope that some of its deficiencies will be improved in another place.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: The Under-Secretary of State has some cause to feel a bit ill done by. As all of us who have been corresponding with him know, the vociferous complaints came very late in the day. I accept that the advisory committee, unlike many advisory committees, may be mean-

ingful. If the anglers continue to complain, be it on their own heads for not having come to an agreement between themselves.
I was not on the Committee because of European Parliament commitments, but I read a great deal of the reports of the debates. Are we sure that the best way to handle this vexatious problem is not on the basis of the regions? One thing that strikes me from the Committee debates is that the problems are very different on the Spey and the Tweed, in the Highlands and the South-West. The best solution would have been to give the regions the powers to do as they saw fit, according to the needs of their own areas.

11.1 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: It would be a great mistake not to give the Bill a Third Reading. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) was indeed talking claptrap. One thing we have learned during these debates is that angling is the largest participator sport in the country. The hon. Member's description of a few anglers being oppressed by many landlords is the complete reverse of the truth. I suspect that many of the troubles ventilated at the famous meeting at the Golden Lion Hotel were raised by people who had been fishing illegally and who were disturbed at the prospect of having to pay.

Mr. Canavan: I do not dispute that the numerical strength of the angling community is much greater than that of the landlords, but power is not proportionately shared. That is what democracy is all about, to see that the majority, and not the land-owning minority, have power.

Sir J. Gilmour: That is a new concept. I was under the impression that our system was based on the principle of one man, one vote. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can suddenly produce a class of people with so much more power than anyone else.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great difference between one man, one vote and one man, one river?

Sir J. Gilmour: No, I do not think there is. We are talking about democracy and the powers of discussion: there is nothing in this at all. Nor would it


be any help to transfer one river to 100 people. There would still be just as many disadvantages.
What some people do not realise is that before this Bill fishing for trout has not been an offence. Making it an offence in protected waters is a step in the right direction, but we might have saved a good deal of trouble if we had simply made trout a protected species.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I shall certainly be brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is the best response to anything I have said all night.
If I had known that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was going to make the speech he has just made, I might have invited him to share the platform with me at the Golden Lion Hotel.
I must protest at some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). It is comforting to appear to be a Left-winger by talking about people going on their knees to landlords. That is exactly the position anglers are in at the moment—unless they have rights from some publicly-owned body, otherwise they would not be fishing at all. They are fishing on rivers only because they have permission from a landlord.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire has acquired a reputation for talking claptrap, because some of his ideas are good. But he did not do justice to those of us who have some knowledge of the position. It is unfair of him to use language of the kind that he did when we are trying, successfully I think, to create better opportunities for more anglers in Scotland. Therefore, although my hon. Friend is entitled to express his disagreement, I hope that he will not overdo the jargon and that he will look carefully at some of the facts, however unpleasant he may find them.
May I also say to SNP Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I get complaints if I ignore their points of view. When I have the courtesy to make a passing reference to them, I find again

that they are up to their usual opportunistic tricks. They suggested a new clause which contained the principle of protection and for making fishing for trout without a permit an offence—the very matter which gave rise to so much of the misunderstanding about the Bill. I have heard people, including hon. Members, quoting the Hunter Report and the White Paper produced by the previous Administration as though they bore some relation to this Bill. It is not true that the Bill stemmed from the Hunter Report. This is a concept on a voluntary basis which we thought would work, and it has achieved the effect of injecting some discussion among those in fishing circles.

Mr. Canavan: I can remember asking my hon. Friend, in a Parliamentary Question last Session, whether the Government intended to introduce proposals based on the recommendations in the Hunter Report. The reply that I received was to the effect that the Government hoped to introduce such legislation in the near future. Is this the legislation or may we expect another Bill quite soon based on those recommendations?

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am quite good, but I cannot remember everything that I have said in the past. I should need to look at what I said on that occasion before answering that question. But there has never been a statement by me or by anyone else that this Bill is connected with or flows from any recommendations in the Hunter Report. It has always been the Government's intention to follow the Hunter Report, and it may be true that some reply was given to the effect that it was a matter for future legislation. I cannot clear up the matter any further than that.
We are the first Government since publication of the Hunter Report to make a start in doing something positive about brown trout fishing in Scotland. I am sure that the Bill will command support from anglers when they understand better what we are after. I hope that it will command support from the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 16.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[11.9 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Beith, A. J.
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Buchan, Norman




Buchanan, Richard
Judd, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Kerr, Russell
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Carmichael, Neil
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Leadbilter, Ted
Small, William


Cohen, Stanley
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton and Slough)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Crawshaw, Richard
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Cryer, Bob
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dalyell, Tam
Mackintosh, John P.
Stoddart, David


Deakins, Eric
Maclennan, Robert
Stott, Roger


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Strang Gavin


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Botton W)


Dempsey, James
Magee, Bryan
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Dormant), J. D.
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn james


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marquand, David
Urwin T W


Dunrn, James A,
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwrlght.'Edwin (Dearne V)


English, Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Terry (kingswood)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mellish, R. Hon Robert
Ward Michael


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Flannery, Martin
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
White James (Pollock)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Gay, Hamish
Oakes Gordon
Whitlock, William


Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Harper, Joseph
Penhaligon, David
Woodall, Alec


Harrison, Walter (Wakelield)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof Robert


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Roderick, Caerwyn
Young, Davia (Botton E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hunter, Adam
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. James Hamilton and


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)




NOFS


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Sillars, James
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Crawford, Douglas
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)



Henderson, Douglas
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacCormick, Iain
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mr. David Lambie and


Raid, George
Watt, Hamlsh
Mr. Dennis Caravan.


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Welsh, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

CROFTING REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
I do this because we have already had the Second Reading of an important Scottish Bill today, and we have completed the Report stage and Third Reading of another important Scottish Bill. The Government now propose that we should embark on a second Report stage, for which there are more than 30 amendments down for consideration. It is unreasonable to start on this Report stage at nearly 20 minutes past 11 o'clock at night. The Government would not put down the Second Reading and two Report stages of English legislation on

one day, and Scottish Members should not be treated in this way.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to accept the motion at this stage. We have not started to discuss the measure yet, and it was set down on the Order Paper for today. Therefore, I cannot accept that motion now.

Clause 1

NEW RIGHTS OF CROFTERS AND COTTARS TO ACQUIRE THEIR SUBJECTS

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move Amendment No 1, in page 2, leave out lines 6 to 9 and insert
'unless the land has been apportioned under section 27(4) of the Act of 1955 and is either—
(i) adjacent or contiguous to any other part of the croft, or
(ii) arable machair;'.
There was some discussion on the drafting of this subsection during our consideration of the Bill in Committee, and certain hon. Members were critical of the wording. I assure the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that most of the Government


amendments are helpful amendments, their drafting taking note of some of the points made during the Committee stage. I do not visualise that in many of them there should be much delay or criticism.
It is a very important Bill, and the crofters, as I understand it, want it. I think we should take the chance, while we can, to get the Bill on its way. A Bill is often very much more important than the speeches made on it.
As I have indicated, there was criticism in Committee, and as proof of my willingness to meet, if possible, all reasonable criticism I asked the parliamentary draftsmen to re-examine the drafting to see whether it could be clarified in any way. I think it was the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) who had something to say about this. We therefore propose the wording in the amendment, which, I think, meets the criticisms made at the time.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 23, at end insert
'unless that dwelling-house is occupied by a member of the crofter's family in which case this subsection shall not apply'.
This amendment again refers to a point that was touched on in the debate in Committee. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) raised this matter and I supported him in it. I hope that the Secretary of State will be as flexible and generous in relation to this as he was in relation to the previous point.
The Under-Secretary, who handled the matter in Committee, very kindly wrote to me about this, and I believe that he sent a copy of the letter to the hon. Member for Western Isles. In his letter the Under-Secretary refers to the problem we are trying to cover in the amendment. Where there are two houses on a croft and one is occupied by close members of the family of the crofter himself, we believe that they should have the same rights in buying the site of the house as the crofter himself should have. We think that this is important because of the provision that crofters make to ensure

that there is proper housing available for close members of the family.
While I appreciate the explanation that the Under-Secretary has given to me by letter—that in one way or another there should not be real difficulties in the way of the title to the site of the second house being available to the people who are in it—what worries me is that it is necessary to go through a number of procedures before this can be achieved. I wonder whether at the end of the day there will not be some final obstacle still to be overcome and whether my amendment—which is the same as that put forward in Committee—is not better in making the position certain by enshrining the right in the legislation rather than having to go through all the procedures which might involve difficulties and delays.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I support the submission made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on his amendment.
There is a certain number of cases—not numerous—in the crofting areas where the crofter, his predecessor or a member of his family has had a second house built. In some cases, although a new house has been built, a member of the family—perhaps an aged relative—has stayed in the old house.
The Secretary of State will be aware that the houses were provided by the crofter or his predecessors. There is no question of their having been provided by the landlord. If by certain procedures these could be taken over by the crofter, this would be a useful amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.

Mr. William Ross: In Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) that this matter would be looked at again. I have given a good deal of thought to the difficult issue raised in the amendment, with which I have some sympathy, but I have concluded that on balance—I stress that the matter is not clear-cut and the arguments are somewhat finely balanced—I must resist the amendment.
I am informed by the draftsman that the amendment is defective for the purpose for which it was moved by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith).
I resist the amendment for two reasons. First, the fundamental principle in the Bill is that the crofter should have an incontestable right to acquire the site of one dwelling-house—the one which he identifies as the house pertaining to the croft. This, as was said in Committee, is in accordance with the principle inherent in crofting legislation since 1886 that a crofter has a right to erect one house on his croft without his landlord's consent. If we were to extend the incontestable right, it would breach that principle.
Secondly, it is a basic principle in the Bill that the landlord has a right under Clause 3(3) to a share in the value of any part of the croft land, other than the site of the croft dwelling-house, which the crofter realises by disposal within five years of acquisition. We are talking about the site of that second house. If the incontestable right were extended to the site of a second dwelling-house, that site would no longer come within the definition of croft land and the landlord would lose his right to a share in the value of the site on disposal within five years. It must be understood that the amount would be unlikely to be very significant; but the principle is established in Clause 3, and we want to try to be consistent throughout the Bill.
Having said that, I repeat the point made in Committee that the Bill as drafted gives the crofter what is in practice virtually an incontestable right to acquire the site of a second house. If he cannot buy it by agreement with the landlord, he can seek an order from the Land Court authorising him to acquire the site as part of his croft land. The landlord can contest the application only on the grounds that the acquisition of such a part would cause him substantial hardship or be substantially detrimental to the sound management of his estate.
I am sure that hon. Members would agree that the chances of a landlord succeeding there are, to say the least, very slight. The only point about acquisition in this way as part of the croft land is that it carries the liability to make a second payment to the landlord if the site is resold within five years. In the situation that we are examining, however, where the house is occupied by a member of the crofter's family, such disposal is unlikely and, as I have said, the amount would not be significant.
Those are the facts. I can understand the desire of hon. Gentlemen to make the matter as simple as possible, but there are difficulties regarding the basic principles of the Bill from which we do not want to depart, because we could be forced to depart in other ways which might not be helpful.
With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3

CONSIDERATION PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF ACQUISITION OF CROFT LAND

Mr. Wiliam Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 42, leave out 'effeiring' and insert 'attributable'.
This matter has caused me some heartburning. We are taking out of this legislation a word which is familiar to all crofters. However, it shows how generous and sensitive we are. We were pressed from both sides to make the language of the law more readily understood. I have consulted people, and after deep and earnest thought we came to the conclusion that the word "attributable" would be more readily understood than "effeiring", which I suggest will still be in the minds and memories of crofters. From the point of view of humble Members of Parliament and unlearned lawyers, we have made it easier by putting in the word "attributable" instead of "effeiring".

Amendment agreed to.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 7, to leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) If the croft land acquired by virtue of Section 2(1) of this Act is disposed of by means other than by lease for crofting or agriculture purposes at any time within five years of its acquisition, then the landlord referred to in the said section 2(1) may apply to the Land Court for a share of the increase of market value of the relevant land. The Land Court shall not grant such an application if it would be substantially detrimental to the interests of the crofter concerned.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 9,


in page 4, line 16, leave out 'half and insert 'quarter'.

Mr. Hughes: Under the present terms of the clause, if a crofter disposes of land, which he had bought from a landlord, within five years for purposes other than crofting and there is as a result of that sale an accrued value on the land, the landlord is entitled automatically to half the increased value as long as he has had to sell his croft more or less by compulsion.
In Committee we discussed thoroughly the principle concerning the right of ex-landlords to what might fairly be called development value. Unfortunately my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did not explain in any detail why this automatic entitlement to half the value had been included in the Bill except to say that we were, by compulsion, taking something away from a landlord who was not willing to sell and, therefore, a kind of quid pro quo was being inserted into the Bill. Why it was decided to write in "half" and not some other amount was never explained in any detail.
One is forced to the conclusion that there must have been a secret deal made by the last Government and the Scottish Landowners' Federation in order to get the policy of allowing the crofter to buy his land accepted. That is why the amendment lays down that the landlord
may apply to the Land Court
in order to get a share, if the circumstances should arise that such a share might be available. In my view we should say that the Land Court is the right body to decide what is a fair share.
The Land Court, in determining whether a crofter should be able to buy the land, is the body which decides under what terms and conditions the land should be sold. Clause 2 makes it perfectly clear that if in the view of the Land Court it
would cause a substantial degree of hardship to the landlord 
to sell the croft to the existing crofter, the Court would not transfer the land. It goes further and states that if the transfer of the croft
would be substantially detrimental to the interests of sound management of the estate of the landlord",

again the Land Court would not make such a transfer.
Therefore, by the time we reach the stage where the croft has actually been transferred by compulsion, against the landlord's wishes—clearly, if he wished to sell voluntarily it would not come before the Land Court—it will have been demonstrated quite clearly to the Land Court that such action is not substantially to the detriment of the landlord or of the management of his estate. Therefore, I do not see any reason why we should carry forward the proposition that the landlord is entitled to a share of the improved value.
In effect, the amendment says that the landlord is entitled to apply to the Court for a share and that the Court, in determining what the share should be, should take into account the circumstances of the crofter. The amendment makes it clear that
The Land Court shall not grant such an application if it would be substantially detrimental to the interests of the crofter concerned.
In other words, the amendment seeks to change the emphasis. Instead of the ex-landlord, as I suppose he will be by that time, being automatically entitled to his share he has first to apply and secondly to demonstrate his need for such a share of the value. Moreover, the Court must be satisfied that it will not be detrimental to the interests of the crofter.
There is a subtle and important difference in the way the amendment is drafted. I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel able to accept it or, if he has difficulties of a technical nature concerning the drafting, that he will give an undertaking that an amendment to similar effect will be tabled by the Government in another place.

Mr. William Ross: I can appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is trying to do. He wants to remove the obligation on a person who has acquired land under Clause 2(1) to make a second payment to the landlord in the event of the disposal of the land within five years of acquisition other than by lease for crofting or agricultural purposes. We are talking, therefore, about virtually a temporary measure. I hope that in considering the amendment my hon. Friend


will bear in mind that we are giving the crofter rights he has never before possessed. The justice of the provision is long overdue.
In substitution, the amendment would give the landlord the right in such circumstances to apply to the Land Court for a share in the market value of the land disposed of by a crofter. The Land Court would be precluded from granting such an application if it would be substantially detrimental to the interests of the crofter. The amendment would be effective for that purpose, but it is defective in the respect that it lays down no basis on which either the previous market value or the increase should be determined, or on what basis the Land Court should determine what share, if any, is to be allocated. My hon. Friend is seeking to leave a large measure of discretion to the Land Court, and whether that would always prove to be wise is something for the future.
The purpose of Amendment No. 9 is apparently to secure that, in the event of Amendment No. 5 being unsuccessful, the crofter's liability to the landlord would be reduced from one-half to one-quarter of the sum relating to market value of the land. The amendment does not disclose a basis of principle on which the Land Court is to exercise its discretion in allocating a share to the landlord, and that is a weakness.

The amendment is contrary to the principles of the Bill and I must resist it for that reason. When we fixed the purchase formula for croft land in Clause 3(2) at 15 times the current rent, we deliberately fixed the price at a level that would be within the reach of crofters who wanted to buy their land and continue to work it. In doing this we recognise that it would be unfair to landlords to give a crofter the right to buy his land for a modest sum and at the same time put him in a position of being able to sell out right away at a price which secured for him any development value in the land.

The concept embodied throughout the Bill is that the crofter and landlord have equal rights in any development value in the land other than for crofting purposes. This is recognised in Clause 9, under which a crofter is entitled to a share of the increased value of any land resumed by a landlord. There is, there-

fore, a balance in respect of the rights that we take away from the landlord and give to the crofter and the obligations that we give to the former crofter, as he will be, and the landlord.

In the same way, we have made reciprocal provision in Clause 3(3) for the former crofter to share equally with the landlord any non-crofting development value which arises on a disposal within five years. Therefore, if I might deal here briefly with Amendment No. 9, it would be wrong to depart from the principle of sharing fifty-fifty and reduce the crofter's liability from one-half to one-quarter. Amendment No. 5 would also impose on the Land Court the onerous burden of determining the financial circumstances of each and every former crofter who sold land as a prerequisite to determining whether sharing the proceeds of disposal would be substantially detrimental to him.

It could be said that, in having to share any payment that would otherwise have come to him in full, the former crofter's interests would be detrimentally affected. On the other hand, he would not enter into the sale unless his interests, notwithstanding the need to share, were benefited. That is one of the difficulties that we shall place upon the Land Court. In our genuine attempt to change the crofter's position from having no rights to having rights, we believe that we have the position fairly correot. It is not the same as in the previous Bill. It is more helpful to the crofter.

With that explanation, I hope that my hon. Friend will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, just as I listened with interest to what he said earlier—that is, that Bills are sometimes more important than speeches in this House. The point is well taken. My right hon. Friend always knows how to charm the House before he embarks on a sticky wicket.
I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's argument. I want to make two points. The first is that it is said that the amendment is defective because it does not outline a basis for an assessment. That can be done in another place if we accept the principle. Equally, it is true that


there has been no basis for the assessment of a fifty-fifty deal in relation to the money involved. The basis was implied when my right hon. Friend said that we had to make it equal between landlord and crofter. With respect, we cannot make equal that which, by definition, is already unequal. We seek to introduce improved legislation on the crofting situation because we have recognised for a long time that there has not always been an equal situation between the crofter and the landlord.
The history of the Highlands has been bedevilled with moves in relation to the origins of the crofting legislation and since. Therefore, I cannot accept that an amendment that introduces a principle for securing such an assessment can be faulted because it does not set out, bit by bit, the nature of that assessment when an amount has already been stated in the Bill to determine the relative allocation—fifty-fifty—which is based not upon reality but upon some kind of mythical concept of being fair to landlords and crofters.
We have introduced the Bill basically because we believe that justice exists between landlords and crofters. Therefore, there is no logical argument for the rebuttal of the amendment. The same applies to the difficulty that will be posed for the Land Court in trying to assess whether the amendment would be substantially detrimental to the interests of the crofters concerned. I cannot accept that by the nature of the operation that argument can be rebutted. The Secretary of State said that the crofter would not put the land up for sale or to be disposed of unless it was in his interest so to do. Therefore, by definition, the Land Court would be debarred from coming to the view that it must be substantially detrimental to a crofter's interests because it was the crofter who in the first place brought the matter to the Land Court.
This is a kind of logic in the abstract which does not apply to the reality of the situation. A crofter may wish to dispose of his land because of his age, because of potential development or for other reasons. We do not want to introduce legislation which leads the crofter to believe that he is debarred from a fair share of the market value. Therefore.

although the rebuttal has a logical ring about it, it does not accurately reflect the reality of the situation. I do not accept the logic of the rejection and I believe that the defectiveness—in other words, the non-spelling out of the circumstances which could be considered—can, if the princple is accepted, be put right in a Government amendment without the assistance of another place.
11.45 p.m.
I should like to comment briefly on the fraction of one-quarter. If we are right in saying that there was no basis for the fifty-fifty differentiation between crofter and landlord—indeed, there are good reasons for saying that that should not be the basis, because the landlord, by definition, is in a more powerful and better position than the crofters—the logical thing is to alter that assessment downwards. In other words, the assessment should be altered so that to the landlord goes one-quarter rather than three-quarters. However, I cannot make that assessment either. I believe that there is an unequal situation and that one can make that unequal situation more equal by balancing in the interests of the crofter, and one-quarter would at least let the crofter see that a move had been made in the right direction.
Having said that, I know that my right hon. Friend will accept completely the logic of the argument that I have put.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not want to question the technical expertise of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which is much better than mine, but he said that it would be placing a very onerous task on the Land Court to require it to look at the individual circumstances of each crofter. However, under Clause 2(2)(a) of the Bill the Land Court is required to look at the needs of each landlord who does not voluntarily agree to sell his crofting. Therefore, I do not see how looking after the interests of the crofter is a less onerous task.

Mr. William Ross: It is just another task. One makes the Land Court's task more onerous by every additional duty one places upon it. My hon. Friend should also remember that if one gives the courts this sort of wide discretion one should never be surprised by the decisions of any court. Indeed, we once sought to give certain rights in relation to forestry


development within a township. One of the decisions in respect of that came out so badly that the proposal just fell away, and what we hoped at one time would be an advance of the rights of crofters turned out to be something that we could not apply. Therefore, I am not saying this glibly and trying to put people off.
We have had consultations with the crofters' unions about both the formula and the 5-year period, and in respect of what happens after five years the rights are entirely with the former crofter. Let us remember, too, that this is all that we are talking about. I do not want to see a sort of bonanza situation arising in which people give up crofting as quickly as possible and cash in. This element is involved with all the others. I think I am right in saying that we have had no complaints from the crofters' unions about unfairness here. They have generally tended to welcome this provision. Meetings have been held with crofters throughout the Highland areas, so they know what is intended.
We must bear in mind that we are starting from a position that no one could justify. There is a history of tremendous injustice over the rights of crofters. However, we are moving from that position and we are making a tremendous leap forward. On balance this is right. I do not want to make promises, such as to say "We shall look at this matter again". We have looked at it, and we think that it is right as it is at present.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) remembers what I used to tell him when he was a very loyal junior Minister serving under me—that the Bill was more important than the speech.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 8, leave out from 'Act' to first 'by' in line 11 and insert
'("the former crofter") or a member of the former crofter's family who has obtained the title to that land either—
(i) as the nominee of the former crofter, or
(ii) from the former crofter or his nominee, disposes of that land or any part of it ("the relevant land") to anyone who is not a member of the former crofter's family,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, it will be convenient to take Gov-

ernment Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 12, 33 and 34.

Mr. Ross: Amendment No. 6 is a drafting amendment. As hon. Members will recall, in Committee there was considerable discussion about the precise effect of the subsection. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was concerned that the crofters in his constituency might find the drafting of the subsection confusing.

Mr. Hamish Gray: Where are the Liberals?

Mr. Ross: Be that as it may, we decided that we should do something about the subsection. I am bound to concede that its full implications as drafted might not be immediately apparent to everyone. I think that it will be agreed that the wording proposed in Amendment No. 6 achieves a certain measure of more positive clarity.
Perhaps it will be useful if I take this opportunity to explain once again the areas which were in doubt in relation to the crofter's liability to make a second payment to his former landlord on disposal of his land within five years of acquisition. I emphaise—the amendment makes this perfectly clear—that the person we are talking about in Clause 3(3), the only person who can acquire croft land by virtue of Clause 2(1), is the crofter himself. As was explained in Committee, it is not possible to refer to this person as "the crofter", because the person concerned is no longer the tenant but the owner of the land in question. Therefore, he no longer fits the statutory definition of "crofter". We are therefore introducing in the subsection, and subsequently where necessary, a reference to the "former crofter".
My second point is that a disposal by the former crofter to a sub-purchaser by means of a conveyance to a nominee who is not a member of his family is caught by the liability to a second payment. Subsection (3) imposes a liability to a second payment on the person who has acquired croft land under Clause 2(1)—the "former crofter"—or a member of the former crofter's family on disposal of the land within five years to anyone outside the former crofter's family, other than by a lease for crofting or agricultural purposes. I think that


the subsection as redrafted makes this quite clear.

Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 12 are consequential and clarify the various references in Clause 3 to "person". Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are also consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 4, line 13 leave out "that person" and insert "the former crofter".

No. 8, in page 4, line 14 leave out "such person or member" and insert
the person disposing of the relevant land".—[Mr. William Ross.]

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 18 after "land", insert
(on the date of such disposal)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 16 and 26.

Mr. Brown: The purpose of these amendments is to identify the time at which market value is to be assessed for the purposes of Clauses 3, 9 and 10.
The three amendments are concerned with the question of the date on which market value should be determined by the Land Court for the purposes of Clauses 3, 9 and 10, and are designed to remove possible ambiguity.
Amendment No. 10 secures that the crofter's liability to make a second payment to his former landlord will be assessed on the basis of the market value of the relevant land at the time of its disposal by the crofter. It is this disposal which triggers off the crofter's liability to make a second payment to his former landlord, so it is only fair to both crofter and landlord that the payment should be calculated on the basis of the market value of the relevant land at the actual time of the disposal.
Without the amendment, the Bill could be open to the interpretation that the market value of the relevant land might be the value at the time of the application to the Land Court, or of the Land Court's determination, which, of course, could be some time after the disposal. If land prices were rising, this could result

in an injustice to the crofter—or to the landlord if prices were falling.
Amendment No. 16 covers the situation where the landlord resumes croft land under the crofting legislation. In this case it is appropriate that the crofter's share in value should be assessed on the basis of the market value of the land on the date of the Land Court order authorising resumption. The order may not be effective until a later date, but it would be unreasonable to require the Land Court to determine a future market value for the land.
Amendment No. 26 deals with the same point in relation to the case where the crofter's possession has been taken under compulsory acquisition powers by an acquiring authority possessing such powers. It secures that the crofter's share in value will be assessed on the basis of the market value of the land on the date that compulsory possession is taken.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 27, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
'the amount which the land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller (not being an authority as defined in section 1(1)(b) of the Community Land Act 1975), might be expected to realise assuming that on the date of the disposal—
(a) there were no improvements on the land which, if the land were let to a crofter, would be permanent improvements in respect of which the crofter would be entitled to compensation under section 14 of the Act of 1955 on renunciation of the tenancy of the croft of which the land formed part;
(b) no other development had been carried out on the land (not being development carried out on the land, when it was subject to the tenancy of the former crofter or any of his predecessors in the tenancy, by a person other than that crofter or any of such predecessors); and
(c) no development of the land which consisted of the making of such an improvement as is referred to in paragraph (a) above were or would be permitted in pursuance of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.'
I think that I can say with confidence that this is the only significant amendment that requires clarification. It is a complex and technical matter.
The purpose of the amendment is to correct a defect in the drafting of the Bill in relation to the Land Court's determination of market value for the purpose of


the crofter's second payment to his former landlord. Without this amendment, it is possible that some crofters would be seriously and unfairly out of pocket.
The reason for this is that the present drafting of Clause 3(4) does not exclude from the Land Court's determination of market value the value of any non-agricultural development that may have been carried out by the crofter and that could not be classed as a crofter's permanent improvement. Thus, a crofter could purchase his croft land and undertake the type of development—such as a caravan site or comprehensive chalet scheme—which we hope this Bill will encourage. If he then decided to dispose of the land within five years of initial acquisition, he would find himself liable to share with his landlord half the value of his own development. This is clearly unfair to the crofter and is rectified by the provisions of this amendment.
In the new formula as proposed in the amendment, paragraph (a) substantially reproduces sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the original subsection (3(a). It takes out of the market value any improvements on the land for which the crofter-owner would have ben entitled to compensation under the Crofters Acts had he remained a tenant and renounced his croft. This ensures that the crofter will retain the full benefit of any crofting development he has undertaken.
Paragraph (b) takes out of the market value any other development undertaken on the land, which could not be classed as permanent improvements for which a crofter would have been entitled to compensation under the Crofters Acts—namely, the non-agricultural category of development towards which the amendment is directed. However, it leaves within the market value the value attributable to any development at all which may have been provided by the former landlord prior to the crofter's acquisition. This element was also left in under the previous drafting, but the change we suggest makes the position clear.
Paragraph (c) takes out of the market value the development value of the land for any crofting-type development. It does this for the same reasons as apply to paragraph (a). Both those elements

of market value would have been realised by him as a crofter, and therefore he is not by this subsection to be required to account to the landlord for any share of the value of those elements. This is a complicated series of exclusions. It is complicated because it is necessary to identify with the concept of development recognised in the planning legislation and at the same time relate that concept to principles of the crofting legislation.
12 midnight
To put the matter positively, what the landlord will be entitled to receive as a second payment is a share in any open market value of the land which the crofter could not, as a crofter, have realised and which, as an owner, he can realise. In practical terms, he is to share with his ex-landlord value attributable to any vacant possession of the land which he is now able to give any effect of decrofting if that has occurred, and any hope value of the land for any non-crofting development. This is what the original drafting of the Bill was intended to achieve, and what is now effectively achieved by this amendment.
As I told the House, this is a technical matter, but hon. Members will appreciate that it is important for it to be clarified.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 5, line 24, leave out
person referred to in that subsection

and insert
the person disposing of that land".—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Clause 4

DETERMINATION BY LAND COURT OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR CONVEYANCE OF THE SITE OF THE DWELLING-HOUSE.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 21, leave out from second 'the' to 'may' in line 22 and insert 'Land Court'.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide for a minor change in a consequential provision by deleting a reference to the sheriff court, which need not have any function in relation to the Bill, and substituting the Land Court.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

CROFTER'S RIGHT TO SHARE IN VALUE OF LAND RESUMED BY LANDLORD

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 10, line 36, after 'between' insert
',subject to subsection (4A) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 21, 27 and 30.

Mr. Brown: The purpose of these amendments is to exclude from the Land Court's determination of the market value of croft land in Clauses 9 and 10 the value of any development or works which may already have been carried out on the croft land in question by any person other than the crofter or his predecessors in the tenancy. The effect of the amendments would be to restrict the crofter's right to a share in the value of croft land taken for development to the actual value released by his giving up the tenancy of the land.
The crofter would have no right to a share in the value of works carried out on the land by some other person—such as the landlord—prior to resumption or compulsory acquisition—in the same way as he should not be expected to give any share of the value of works carried out by him to the landlord under the Clause 3 second payment liability.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 10, line 37, after 'land', insert
(on the date on which resumption thereof is so authorised) as'.—[Mr Hugh D. Brown.]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 10, line 41, after 'purpose', insert
having relevance to the good of the croft or of the estate or of the public interest'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to discuss Government Amendment No. 22, in page 11, line 27, at end insert—
'"reasonable purpose" has the same meaning as in section 12(2) of the Act of 1955'.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: When I put down this amendment, the Government had not tabled Amendment No. 22. I think that the purpose of my amendment is achieved by No. 22 and it may be that I shall wish to withdraw my amendment.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I think that I can give the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that assurance. I appreciate his concern and Amendment No. 22 is not easy to understand, but I gave an assurance in Committee to look at this matter again and our amendment honours that commitment.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I think that the Government amendment is very similar to one that I put down in Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 10, line 41, after 'purpose', insert:
'which has been or is'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 1, after 'seller', insert:
'(not being an authority as defined in section 1(1)(b) of the Community Land Act 1975)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Government Amendment No. 28.

Mr. Brown: The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the hypothetical "willing seller" in Clauses 9(2) and 10(2) is a willing seller other than an authority within the meaning of Section 1 of the Community Land Act. This exclusion is necessary because of the combined effect of the provisions of the Community Land Act 1975 on the market value of land.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 11, line 4, after 'purpose', insert:
'which has been or is'.

No. 21, in line 24, at end insert:
'(4A) For the purposes of this section, where any development has been carried out by any person, other than the crofter or any of his predecessors in the tenancy, on the land which the Land Court have authorised the landlord to resume, before such authorisation, there shall be deducted from the market value such amount thereof as, in the opinion of the Land Court, is attributable to that development.'

No. 22, in line 27, at end insert:
'"reasonable purpose" has the same meaning as in section 12(2) of the Act of 1955'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Clause 10

CROFTER'S RIGHT TO SHARE IN VALUE OF LAND TAKEN POSSESSION OF COMPULSORILY

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in line 29, after 'the', insert' acquisition and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Government Amendment No. 24.

Mr. Brown: The purpose of these amendments is to make clear that a prerequisite to the operation of the provisions of Clause 10 is that the owner's interest in a croft has been acquired by the authority in pursuance of the compulsory purchase order under which possession of the croft is being taken.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 24, in line 31, after 'authority' insert 'acquire and'.

No. 25, in line 31, after 'thereof, insert 'from a crofter'.

No. 26 in line 37, after first 'land', insert
'(on the date on which such possession is taken) as'.

No. 27, in line 37, after 'between' insert
',subject to subsection (3A) below,'.

No. 28, in line 42, after 'seller', insert
'(not being an authority as defined in section 1(1)(b) of the Community Land Act 1975)'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in line 42, at end insert
'assuming that the land were not land to which the Crofters (Scotland) Acts 1955 and 1961 apply'.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that in determining the open market value for the purpose of assessing the share to be paid to the crofter the value will not be depressed because the land is subject to the provisions of the Crofters Acts. This will mean that the land will be valued on the same unrestricted basis as in Clause 9 where payment is made to the crofter following resumption of the land by the landlord, the land being in that case automatically de-crofted by Section 12(4) of the 1955 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

A mendment made: No. 30, in line 46, at end insert—
'(3A) For the purposes of this section, where any development has been carried out by any person, other than the crofter or any of his predecessors in the tenancy, on the land referred to in subsection (1) above before the land has been acquired by and taken possession of by the acquiring authority, there shall be deducted from the market value such amount thereof as, in the opinion of the Land Court, is attributable to that development.'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Clause 21

INTERPRETATION

Mr. Douglas Henderson: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 18, line 34, at end insert
'and shall additionally for the purposes of section 1(2) include anyone who holds a dwelling-house and garden ground as a tenant-at-will, stance holder or kindly tenant'.
This is a specialised subject which concerns many constituencies, particularly in the North-East of Scotland. The terms "tenant-at-will", "kindly tenant" or, in Banffshire, "stance holder" refer to a fairly specialised kind of tenant. It is a form of tenancy that has lasted for several hundred years. Houses are bought and sold like motor cars or other movable objects. Although there is no security of title in the feudal sense, the system has worked very well and it has been a cheap method of transferring title to property. It has been understood and fully accepted over that period.
But problems have started to arise in the last few years. Many of these houses are in picturesque fishing villages like Stonehaven, Pittullie, Cairnbulg and In-verallochy in my constituency, but they lack modern amenities such as proper bathrooms, sanitation and larders. Such a tenant cannot get an improvement grant from the local authority because he cannot produce a feudal title.
Some months ago, I took up with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) the question whether, if the law could not be changed, local authorities could be empowered to accept evidence that someone was a tenant-at-will, stance holder, or kindly tenant, as adequate for the award of improvement grants. After considering the matter carefully, he advised me that nothing could be done.
Such tenancies often go back, in the same family, to the sixteenth or seventeenth century. Nevertheless, they cannot obtain improvement grants. The way to do so is to apply to a feudal superior for a feudal title. Many superiors have been co-operative, and have granted a feudal title so long as the tenant-at-will pays the legal costs. That is a satisfactory and enlightened arrangement.
But that is not the whole story. Some feudal superiors have been grasping and greedy and have demanded extortionate sums for a feudal title. In some cases, a tenant-at-will who had years previously been granted a feudal title for the ground on which the house stood has asked for title to a patch of adjoining ground on which to build a garage, only to be told that he cannot have it or that it will cost several hundred pounds and the legal costs. That is blackmail: people should not be treated like that in this day and age.
I am disappointed that the Government have not dealt with this situation before now. I raised this matter in the Scottish Grand Committee on 25th June 1974. At the end of the debate, the Lord Advocate talked about the Government's future plans for reforming land tenure. He said:
The previous Labour Government set out a clear series of stages in the White Paper of 1969. Clearly, the intention would be to follow through the squence of events that was there set forward.
Phase 1 of the Labour Party's programme of 1969 was the 1970 Conveyancing Act. Now—
25th June 1974—
we have phase 2, which is the Bill, for stopping feudalism providing for the redemption of existing feuduties. Phase 3 will be the major measure which will be required to reform land tenure entirely in Scotland and abolish the feudal system as we know it.… We are extremely anxious to press ahead as quickly as posible with phase 3, with the full reform of land tenure. … I attach the greatest importance and urgency to getting the phase 3 operation under way.—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 25th June 1974; c. 48–9.]
12.15 a.m.
I have been in correspondence with the Lord Advocate over the months since 25th June 1974, and I am afraid that I am becoming a little impatient about the time that it is taking the Government to deal with this situation, especially about the time that it is taking them to deal with

the problems which many hundreds of people in the North-East of Scotland have to face.
I suspect that it will be argued tonight that this is the wrong Bill in which to implement this type of change. That may be so. But it is the only Bill to have come forward in which we have had any chance to do something for these people. I hope that we shall have some assurance about what is to happen. May we be told for example, that the Government are prepared to try to give local authorities the right to give tenants-at-will improvement grants without their having to exhibit a feudal title? If that could be done, many of the difficulties would be removed.
These people deserve a break. It is high time that they had one. I ask the Government to bend their minds constructively to this problem and to give us an answer which holds out some hope for these people in the future.

Mr. Buchan: I am interested in this matter because I know a little about the problem, without necessarily having any solutions to offer.
I ask the Government to consider the latter point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson). Most of us understand the difficulty of including such a provision in this Bill, which is designed for the specific problems of crofting tenure, and the difficulty that there would be in bringing in this additional definition at this point in the Bill. But is not it possible for the Government to consult the local authorities affected to see whether, if not the whole problem, at any rate this question of improvement grants can be dealt with?
This is not a problem affecting my own area, but clearly it would be of great benefit if the Government could persuade local authorities to act, or give them the necessary power to do so. It might have to be done by a statutory instrument extending the regulations affecting the improvement grant. If that were so, I am sure that the House would give such a measure a swift passage.
Whether the Government can go further and deal with the problem of unfair demands by the superior, which we tried to deal with in the 1970 Act, so that the Land Court could waive unreasonable demands is another matter. But at least


it would be a helpful step affecting many hundreds of people, and it could be done between the Government and the local authorities or by the Government alone.
I hope that we shall receive a favourable answer.

Mr. Hamish Watt: In proposing this amendment, my colleagues and I are well aware of the principles involved, and we are grateful to the Minister for honouring his pledge to my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) to allow the matter to be discussed at this stage.
Although I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) said, I think that the Bill applies precisely to tenants-at-will, stance holders and kindly tenants. The Bill allows crofters in the crofting counties to buy the land on which their houses stand and also their garden land. If we extend the principle to the people we have mentioned, the stance of the house will be made available to the householder. As the principles of the Bill are the same, the geographical area should not matter.
Even more important than the problem of improvement grants for housing are the restrictions placed on the sale of such houses. These houses were built in a particular area for historic reasons. Often the local blacksmith, local joiner, or steelwright, was given the stance by the landowner centuries ago so that he would settle in the area and offer his skills to the community. Tenancies have changed over the years and each time they change there are difficulties because there is no title to the house.
In many cases such properties are not eligible for improvement grants and their condition therefore deteriorates. In some cases they have been abandoned. That is what many landlords want and successive Governments have played into their hands. Some of these houses in Banffshire are now falling vacant. It is a deliberate policy of some landlords to continue the process begun by the Highland clearances.
Not many people in Scotland are involved, but if we established this principle, those householders would have something to look forward to. The Government must take this opportunity to right this wrong and to end the harassment

which has been going on for too long. In my constituency some landlords are refusing to allow electricity supplies through their estates to the type of houses we are now discussing. The acceptance of our proposal would be a step towards creating social justice in Scotland.

Mr. William Ross: We have been drawn into the fascinating sideline of land tenure. I sympathise with the argument, because I was a member of the Guthrie Committee on long leases. People thought that there were very few long leases in Scotland, but we discovered that there were several thousand, starting in a place called Stonehouse, where leases were falling in. We even discovered a long lease in Ayrshire near Kilwinning which had an element of endurance about it—it was a lease of 9,999 years.
The point about the long lease is that the land superior is not required to produce a title to the land, and that particular feudal superior probably did not have a title because it was from the Abbey lands of Kilwinning. We eventually produced a formula to give people the right to long leases. We unearthed the subject of kindly tenants, stance holders and tenants-at-will—all of whom have a history related to an area. Theirs could be said to have been the houses of the soldiers of the local laird. When the soldiers returned from the wars, they were encouraged to settle and were given these positions.
We tried to deal with the people concerned then and could not, because they were already being treated virtually as people who already had feus. There was a celebrated case concerning a kindly tenant in Kilmarnock. I shall not go into it at this hour, but it is a fascinating sidelight on history. If hon. Members look up cases in their own constituencies, they will probably discover far more than they would imagine.
I have sympathy with the case and I applaud the efforts of hon. Members who have raised the matter. The tenants concerned, who are comparatively rare, are found mainly outside the crofting counties. We hope to give them title when we come to the final legislation. I cannot say when that will be. Anyone who has looked into the question appreciates its trickiness, and it takes time to deal with it. We have not been


idle in the past two years about passing legislation, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) will be the first to applaud us for enacting this measure.
I shall look into improvement grants. Not only local authorities but building societies are involved, and I cannot suggest that I have much influence with the building societies, because they are probably more tied down. The real solution is to deal with the matter in the right Bill.
In view of my explanation, that, although we are sympathetic, it would not be right to act in the Bill in the way suggested, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his understanding of the problem. I hope that he will write to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Watts) fairly soon on the subject of improvement grants, which is a pressing matter for many of those concerned.
I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman will jog the memory of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and all those dealing with the land reform measure, so that we may have the kind of change in Scottish land law that many hon. Members and people in Scotland want.
In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 18, line 36, at end insert—
'"development" has the same meaning as in section 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, except that it includes the operations and uses of land referred to in paragraphs (a) and (e) of subsection (2) of that section;'.
In Amendments Nos. 11,21 and 30 we have introduced a concept of development into Clauses 3, 9 and 10. The purpose of the amendment is to define the meaning of "development" as used in the Bill. The effect is that "development" will have the same meaning as in Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, except that it will include certain maintenance or improvement works and the use of land

and buildings for agriculture or forestry, including afforestation, which are excluded from the 1972 Act definition.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 19, line 9, after 'crofter's', insert 'or former crofter's'.

No. 34, in page 19, line 10, after 'crofter'. insert 'or former crofter'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Schedule 2

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 22, line 25 leave out '(3)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 36 and 37.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Brown: Amendment 37 arises out of discussions in Committee—columns 248 to 250 of the Official Report.
I give credit to hon. Members opposite for drawing to my attention the omission in the Bill as drafted to provide for the Crofters Commission's duty of making an annual report extend to its functions under this Bill. Amendment No. 37 provides for this duty to make an annual report to be extended by inserting a reference to this Bill in Section 2(4) of the 1955 Act.

Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 22, line 26, after 'Commission)' insert—
'(a) in subsection (3)'.

No. 37, in page 22, line 28, at end insert—
'(b) in subsection (4), after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "and the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976.".'—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment 38, in page 23, line 45, after 'electricity', insert 'or gas'.
The purpose is to amend paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 of the Bill as a consequence of an amendment to Clause 12 made during the Committee stage. The effect is to add the provision of a gas


supply to those items to which the terms of Section 22(5) of the 1955 Act apply.
Again I compliment hon. Members opposite on raising this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read—

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

12.32 a.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The Secretary of State said in answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that the crofters wanted the Bill. That is perfectly true, although I do not think that they were all demanding it for the night of 2nd-3rd March. I think that the hon. Gentleman's point was valid. We had quite a long discussion on the previous Bill, and I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his stamina.
This is a great advance for the crofting areas of the Highlands. It is not a perfect Bill. On many points we argued in Committee, and I am sorry that many of those arguments were not maintained, but no Bill is entirely perfect and I am sure that nobody expects to get through 100 per cent, of his amendments.
In my part of the crofting area we have suffered from the landlord problem—not so much from tyrannical landlords. The problem has rather been one of indifference. We were in the same position in Lewis as in certain parts of Ireland. One of the Irish farmers was supposed to have said that the country was overrun by absentee landlords. If they are not doing any acts of great tyranny towards the crofters, they certainly were not taking much interest in the land.
There was an example in Lewis recently where a village wanted a very poor piece of ground for levelling for a football pitch. The proprietor, Mrs. Barker of the Soval estate, demanded £600 for some quite worthless land. The people did not have the money, so the pitch was not made.
I regret that there are provisions still in the Bill to which I take great objection—for example, the retention of the mines, metals and minerals by the landlord. I pressed at various stages for the crofter, when he became the owner, to

become the owner outright. In the case of shooting rights, it has to be remembered that the harvest in the Highlands is not in on 12th August, and people engaged in shooting can run over the crofts.
I am sorry that the peat rights were not defined in a wider way to be given to the crofter's family. I regret the withdrawal, when a crofter becomes an owner, of the grant or loan which is still applicable to crofting tenure. I argued—I do not want to go into the matter in detail—that in the long run it would have meant a saving to the public purse.
I regret that Section 18 of the 1955 Act is repealed. I take the Under-Secretary's point that it will fall into disuse because other avenues will allow the same result. However, the crofting community in my area thought that it would be a valuable concession for it to remain.
The great thing about the Bill has been the writing in of the crofter's choice to decide whether he wants to become an owner. The Secretary of State knows that this will solve a lot of problems. The answer to any crofter is that he must weigh the advantages and disadvantages on both sides and make his own decision. That is a great advance.
Despite my criticisms, I think that this is an excellent Bill which will be welcomed by crofters. It is too early to say whether it will be as great as the 1886 legislation. However, the Bill marks a great advance for the crofting community. I congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing it forward.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. Gray: I congratulate the Secretary of State on having brought in the Bill. It is the natural successor to the Bill introduced by the Conservative Government in 1974. We welcome wholeheartedly the change of view of the present Government. We particularly welcome the change of view of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who, despite the vitriol which he poured on the previous proposal, has now been wholly converted. It is a welcome conversion not only to hon. Members, but to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and everybody in the Highlands.
Like the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), I find that there are


a number of matters about which I still have regrets. For example; I am sorry that it was not possible for the Government to accept the amendment which would have had the effect of making grazing committees legally constituted bodies. We argued this matter at length in Committee and the Government replied with reasonable arguments. Nevertheless, it is a pity, especially as those bodies might justly have been entitled to EEC aid in future.
I had my say about building societies in Committee, but I reiterate what I then said. It is wholly unfair that certain building societies, which accept contributions and deposits from people living in crofting communities, should be reluctant to make loans on occasions when asked. Indeed, as a result of some of my speeches on this subject, I received a communication from a prominent director of one building society—for obvious reasons, it must be nameless—to the effect that his building society was prepared to lend money in any part of Scotland. That was an achievement. I shall make a point of trying to pursue the matter further with other societies in due course.
I was tempted at one stage to engage in the practice common to the present Secretary of State for Scotland when he was in opposition. The right hon. Gentleman used to rise to speak, probably at a much later hour than this, during the Third Reading of a Bill and give the impression that he would talk for only a few minutes. I have sat in the Government Whips' seat on one or two occasions only to find that the right hon. Gentleman had a great deal that he wanted to say on Third Reading, and we all had to sit and listen. I assure him that I shall not try to return the compliment tonight.
I whole-heartedly welcome the Bill. The people in the crofting communities will welcome it. I know that the crofters in Ross and Cromarty whole-heartedly welcome it. I am sure that the crofters in Caithness and Sutherland will welcome it, as they did its predecessor. I wish the Bill well.

12.42 a.m.

Mr. Watt: Although I welcome the Bill, there is one matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the House. It is the deep regret fell by my

colleagues in the Scottish National Party and me that the Government did not see fit to sell die crofts to the crofters outright. It is disgraceful in this day and age that the shooting and fishing rights should be retained by the landlord and that the crofter is duty bound to grant a lease to the landlord of the shooting rights over, and the fishing rights pertaining to, the croft. It is somewhat ludicrous that when someone buys something he cannot get a clear title to that for which he has paid.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must relate his remarks to what is in the Bill and not to what he wishes was in the Bill.

Mr. Watt: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is in the Bill and one would have thought that such a clause would not be in a Bill introduced by a Socialist Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may be right to say that it is in the Bill, but he is not in order when he says that it should not be in the Bill.

Mr. Watt: I understood that one was entitled to regret the inclusion of certain items. It is dreadful that as the shooting rights are to be retained by the landlord, the crofter has no right to stop marauding deer or marauding vermin of any kind from doing damage to that which he has bought. This is the only part of the Bill that I deprecate.

12.44 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I am glad that the Bill has received a fairly general welcome. I am sorry about the note of despondency which came from the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt). As he knows, in dealing with land many items have to be included for the simple reason that some rights do not automatically go with the land. Certain rights can be sold separately from the land. Therefore, there is the extremely difficult operation of placing an obligation upon a landowner who does not even own the mineral rights. Indeed, the shooting rights may have been already sold, probably not by him, but by someone else. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not appreciate that.
I wish to pay a tribute to the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill.


It did a splendid job. There has certainly been an earnest effort to have the Bill completely clarified for the benefit of those who will have to operate it and those who will benefit from it. The Committee has done an excellent job and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the way he has handled it. There are few Ministers who have dealt with a Bill on Second Reading, in the Scottish Grand Committee on principle and then proceeded to deal with an angling Bill and a crofting Bill. As someone has said, "Well done, Hugh".
Let us not under-estimate the importance of the Bill. It is a watershed in crofting history because it means a new era of rights for the crofter that he never possessed before and a new freedom in development and participation in development. I am perfectly sure, knowing the crofters, that they will make up their own minds. The right exists if they wish to take the opportunity to exercise it.
There are differences of opinion among some of my hon. Friends about what we have done. They feel we should have made wider and more sweeping provisions. The Bill is, however, a major step forward and I am glad that the House has received it as it has.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ARMED FORCES BILL

Ordered,
That the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill have power to adjourn from place to place.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Dunn.]

RAILWAY FARES

12.46 a.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: I am fortunate enough to have the Adjournment debate on the problem of railway fares. It is fortunate because I can reflect in the House of Commons the legitimate anxieties of so many of my constituents. I am unfortunate, how-

ever, in that it should have fallen on a night when we had not one, but two, Scottish Bills to deal with. I used to be a staunch Unionist, but my conversion to Scottish nationalism in the course of the evening has been something like instant. This is perhaps something that the Minister and I will be able to agree about in this short debate. I have the added disadvantage in that last night I went to bed in Paris, which means that whereas for the Minister it is almost one o'clock, for me it is almost two o'clock.
The whole question of the seemingly ever-increasing rise of commuter fares has been put in focus by the Government's decision to place a cash ceiling upon the subsidy for British Rail. Already there have been three fare increases within a year, there is the prospect of a further increase this April of 17 per cent., and yet another is threatened for autumn 1976. The last is necessary to pay for the wage increases which are scheduled for later this year.
It appears that the heaviest increases in fares will fall upon the long- and middle-distance commuters rather than upon the inter-city services. The increase in this sector will come in spite of an 11 per cent, decrease in usage in 1975 and a further fall, estimated by British Rail at about 3 per cent., in 1976. One is forced to conclude that British Rail is leaning heavily on a sector of the market which is obliged to use its services—the commuter.
I have one example of a constituent who has written to me to express his disquiet about the situation. I could give many examples, but I shall restrict myself to this one. My constituent lives in Yateley and travels every day from Farnborough to Waterloo, a line which, I believe, actually makes money. In July 1975 his first-class yearly season was £419. It rose to £485 and in April this year it will go up to between £557 and £575. My constituent makes the point that he needs to earn £1,690 a year before tax in order to pay for this season ticket.
If we add to that cost the cost of car parking at Farnborough, which amounts to £42, we are almost approaching a figure of £600 a year for a first-class season ticket, for which £1,818 has to be earned. In this case, as the commuter earned more than £8,500 a year,


he has not been permitted any increase in salary following the "instruction", if I may use that word, of Mr. Jack Jones, and the inclusion of that element of redistribution in the Government's incomes policy.
That is an example of a man who is comparatively affluent, and who can afford to travel first class. However, only about 7 per cent, of those travelling on the railways travel first class. If that man is in some difficulty, how much more difficult is it for the less affluent among my constituents and for the young marrieds who are obliged to use the trains?
Some months ago, the Secretary of State for the Environment said, with all that radical chic of someone who lives in London, W.8, that members of the middle-class had been far too successful in persuading the State to subsidise their rail tickets from their commuter homes. That is a curious point of view because it suggests that only the rich use the railways. It is not true but it is a myth that may be foisted upon us. It is the lower income groups that are by far the greatest users of public transport, and 50 per cent, of the families in this country have no car.
If, for a moment, it is accepted as true that the middle-class commuter is to a degree subsidised by the subvention of himself as a taxpayer, he would argue, not unreasonably, that he is fairly entitled to claim back something from the amount of money that he pays to the Inland Revenue.
There is no doubt that the middle classes—and I use the term "middle income group" now because it has been introduced into my short speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment—are suffering from Socialism's three-way stretch. Socialism's three-way stretch is, first, that we suffer from the highest rate of income tax in Europe, save for Sweden; secondly, that we now endure European levels of indirect taxation; and, thirdly, that we suffer from the highest rate of inflation in Europe. The middle class, in particular, is caught all three ways by this Government.
Over and above that we have the steady increase in rates which bear so heavily upon owners of property. I fear that another five years of Socialism and

we shall find that the middle class has nothing left, save its accent, and British Rail will lose a third to a half of its passengers.
I make no pretence to solve, particularly at this hour of the night, the extremely difficult economic problems that face the railways. I see a need for a ceiling on Government moneys and subsidies. However, in looking at the problem of the railways and trying to find somewhere some relief for the person who is obliged to use them to get to work every day, we have to look at the whole problem of overmanning on British Rail. That is one part of the problem. The second part is the sheer managerial inefficiency with which British Railways are run.
Restrictive practices are still prevalent in British Railways. The second man on the trains, a hang-over from the days when British Railways had steam locomotives, is still there—earning £47 a week, mainly for making tea. Restrictive practices on the freight side are quite alarming. If a particular foreman in a marshalling yard does not feel like using the new equipment for which we have paid in order to make British Railways more profitable, he refuses to do so, and management is quite unable to persuade him to its point of view. There is already planned a reduction in manpower on British Railways from 230,000 to 190,000 by 1981. But I submit that a larger reduction than that will be required.
However, the unions are not the sole villains. Indeed, anyone who watches television will have noticed a very curious alliance that has sprung up between the leaders of the railway unions and the commuters. There was a time when commuters in my part of the world had nothing good to say of Mr. Ray Buckton, but there now seems to be an alliance between the two.
If the unions are not the only villains, the other is the management of British Railways. The sum of £115 million a year, or 14 per cent, of the budget of British Railways, is spent on administration. A number of people working in the industry have suggested that this budget might easily be cut by half, with all the savings in money and the additional efficiency that would occur.
The essential point for British Railways is that they must persuade the public that they, the public, are actually beginning to get value for their money, both by holding down what appears to be an irrevocable rise in fares, and at the same time attempting to limit the subsidy, which is now running to the tune of £500 million of our money each year on the railways.

12.57 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): When I saw the subject for tonight's Adjournment debate, I had visions of being faced by several ranks of hon. Members from commuter-land. Perhaps they have all caught their trains.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) for the way in which he has made his points. As he says, the increase in rail fares, and particularly the cost of commuting, is causing a lot of anxiety. I want to make it perfectly clear at the outset, therefore, that the Government realise that the fares increases are biting into family budgets, and that we do not regard commuters as a group of captive plutocrats who should be soaked for every penny that British Rail can get out of them.
The example that the hon. Gentleman gave of the £8,500-a-year man travelling first class was not a typical example and, not a good one to use on this occasion.
Certainly no one wanted fares to increase. If the rise this month could have been avoided in an acceptable way, I can assure the House that the Railways Board and the Government would have seized it. My aim tonight is to explain why the increase could not be avoided and what the Government are doing to help maintain the passenger system.
The London and South-East area of British Rail accounts for about 40 per cent, of all the passenger mileage travelled in the country. About 1 million passenger journeys are made each weekday. This is a very formidable operation and one which makes an essential contribution to the working of London. Although there is quite a lot of commuting into other large cities, the vast majority of rail commuting journeys are made into London. What I shall say tonight, therefore, will be concerned mainly with the South-East Region.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there have been four railway fares increases since June 1974, amounting to an overall rise of about 68 per cent. The increases at the end of this month will average 12 per cent. I fully realise that these are very substantial increases. They have been essential in order to keep up with sharply rising costs. One reason for fare rises in the past two years having to be so steep was to make up for the way in which rail fares were allowed to fall behind the general level of inflation—and, in particular, the rise in rail costs—during the period of price restraint imposed by the previous Government between 1971 and 1974. During that period, rail fares rose by 2 per cent, less than the retail price index, and 12 per cent, less than average earnings. I am not making a party political point, but merely explaining that the increases of the past 18 months were required to keep up with not merely current cost increases, but the rise in costs in previous years.
I can indicate the extent to which there had to be catching up for past fares restraint when I tell the House that even after the 1975 fares increases, rail fares had risen only slightly higher than the retail price index from 1971–75. Rail costs had increased substantially more than both the price index and fares.
I must also emphasise that the Government have not allowed rail fares to rise to the full extent of the rise in rail costs. Fares increases would have had to be considerably greater if it had not been for the massive subsidy of over £300 million which taxpayers paid for the support of the rail passenger system alone in 1975. The Railways Board also received payments towards its freight deficit, passenger services in metropolitan areas, level crossings and historic pensions liabilities. Altogether, this brought the total level of Government financial support for the railways to almost £500 million last year.
As the hon. Gentleman will recall, in the Railways Act 1974 we set aside a total of £1,500 million for the support of the rail passenger system. At the time, it was hoped that the money would last for five years. By June 1975, however, it was clear that the £1,500 million would run out much sooner unless strong counter-measures were taken to increase the railways' revenue and reduce their costs. We have, therefore, had to set


British Rail the short-term target of limiting the passenger support grant for 1976 to no more than the 1975 level in real terms—namely, allowing for the general level of price increases expected in 1976 as compared with 1975. The fares increases of September 1975 and March 1976 form a vital part of the action British Rail considers it must take if it is to meet this short-term target.
The alternative to these fare increases would have been either to increase public expenditure or to make cuts in other vital programmes, such as housing or our efforts to combat unemployment. Neither of these would have been acceptable, so we have had no alternative but to hold to the financial target for 1976. British Rail believes this makes the March fares rise unavoidable. It is in the best position to judge what action is needed to meet the financial target. We could not both set the Board the target and prevent it from taking the action to achieve it. Even so, it should be remembered that the Government will be giving the passenger system as much financial support this year as we did last year. Without this aid, even higher rises would be needed.
Having explained the background to the recent increases, I shall try to answer the specific points about this topic that have been made by the hon. Gentleman and in the Press. The first is the contention that commuters pay for a disproportionate share of British Rail's total costs. It is often said that British Rail increases commuter fares by larger amounts than other fares because it believes that it has a captive market in commuters. It is true that in the increases which will take place in March, fares in London and the South-East—the area where most commuting by rail takes place—will rise by more than fares on inter-city services—namely, by 10·17 per cent, compared with 5·12 per cent. However, fares in London and the South-East will be going up in general by a smaller percentage than fares for non inter-city services in other parts of the country.
Moreover, while it is very difficult to allocate British Rail's costs between its various services, the indications are that in general commuter services are more heavily subsidised than inter-city services.

This will continue to be so after the March fare increases.
There is not any question, therefore, of the Board "soaking the commuter". The differences between the average increases in inter-city, commuter and all other rail fares are small. Inter-city fares are to go up by slightly less than commuter fares, and commuter fares by slightly less than "provincial" fares because the Board believes that this is the best way to get the optimum increase in earnings and thus enable it to meet the financial target for 1976.
There are two further points which must be remembered when comparing the commuters and other rail users. First, the commuter makes more costly demands on the railways than do other users. Most commuters travel during short peak periods. To cater for these British Rail has to have large amounts of rolling stock, large numbers of staff, and a vast and complex infrastructure of track and signalling, which, though intensively used during peak periods, cannot be profitably employed for most of the rest of the day.
Secondly, despite the recent fare increases, commuters purchasing season tickets still obtain a substantial discount. When the price of a weekly season ticket is compared with the price of purchasing the requisite number of single ordinary tickets for the rail journey concerned, the discount the regular traveller receives is very large.
A weekly ticket from Brighton to London, for example, costs about 50 per cent, less than 10 single tickets. To quote another example, an annual season ticket for travel between Guildford and London costs about 40 per cent, less than single tickets would. I take a further example, from the commuting journey to London from the hon. Member's Alder-shot constituency. Even after the fare increases in March this year, the cost per mile of a quarterly season ticket from Fleet to London will be about 2·2p compared with nearly 4p per mile for an ordinary return ticket. I am sure that a great many bus users would be pleased to travel at a rate of 2·2p per mile. Thus, although it is undeniable that increases in commuter fares in the last two years have been very heavy, the commuter is still receiving a very significant discount for a service which,


by its nature, makes less efficient use of resources.
It has been suggested that repeated fares increases will lead to lower total earnings—in other words, that so many people will be driven away from rail travel that the railways will die for lack of custom. In fact, passenger journeys in 1975 were 2 per cent, less than in 1974. To some extent this reduction in rail travel was caused by fares increases, but it was also caused by the business recession.
The Board says the fares increases in 1975 added an extra £90 million to the passenger system and it estimates that the March increase will yield an additional £30 million this year. The Board is convinced, therefore, that the point of diminishing returns has not yet been reached.
I have been asked whether commuters could receive tax relief on their fares. Tax changes are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has pointed out, a subsidy in this form could be highly regressive, giving most benefit to those on high incomes with high marginal rates of income-tax, such as the example given by the hon. Gentleman.
I know that there is resentment among many commuters that they are having to pay higher fares for services which are sometimes unreliable or overcrowded. I wish that we could replace all the old rolling stock and upgrade all services, but in our present financial position that just is not feasible.
As I have already said, it is already very costly to provide for a huge peak period demand when the services are little used during the rest of the day. The costs of a general increase in services at peak times, in terms of rolling stock, train crews and improvements to track and signalling, would be prohibitive. The avoidance of all delays and cancellations of services would require even greater investments in staff and equipment.
I am certainly not saying that there will be no improvements made to the quality of commuter train services. Wherever they can be justified, improvement and modernisation will continue to be carried out. But even to maintain the present level of service in the London and South-East region will require substantial investment in rolling stock and infrastructure over the next decade.
I know that the "No Rail Cuts Campaign" has alleged that a constant, rather than a constantly rising, level of investment in the railways will lead in a short period to either massive line closures and service reductions or to a "rotting railway". I cannot accept this. The level at which we have decided to stabilise investment in the railways is higher in real terms than at any time since the mid-60s.
As I said at the outset, the Government recognise the problems and frustrations of commuters. We are giving very substantial financial support to the passenger system this year. We could give more only by cutting other vital programmes. We could not do that without unacceptable consequences. That is why the March increase in fares in unavoidable. Even so, the average commuter is not having to pay much more than about 2p a mile for his journey on British Rail to work. By any standards, that is very good value in these days.
For the longer term, we are examining the whole question of commuting and the rôle of the railways in the transport policy review. Before we reach any conclusions, there will be wide consultations and, I am sure, debate in this House. Our aim is to achieve improved integration, and better public transport and this must be as much to the benefit of rail commuters as to any other section of the community.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past One o'clock.